‘People think Bollywood is the father of all filmmaking but this is a myth. The big box office numbers come from Bollywood and there’s a myth that these Hindi films are pan-Indian films. This is not true.’
National Award-winning filmmaker, Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri has been very vocal when it comes to his opinions. A member of the Central Board of Film Certification, he has been part of the Hindi film industry for nearly two decades, making films that have earned him accolades in India and abroad. Currently, he is all set to make “The Delhi Files” and a three-part film on the Mahabharata. In this exclusive chat with The Sunday Guardian, Vivek Agnihotri talks about Indian cinema, his films, his way of life, atrocities against women and CAA.
Q: You have had two successful films like “The Kashmir Files” and “The Vaccine War”. Now, what will “The Delhi Files” be about?
A: I had declared a long time ago that I’m going to make a trilogy on Indian democracy and I’ll raise three questions. The theme of the first film was right to truth, which was “The Tashkent Files”. Second was the right to justice, which was “The Kashmir Files”. Third is the right to life, which is “The Delhi Files”. I thought these are the three pillars of democracy—truth, justice and life.
I started thinking, “Why did we struggle so much for freedom?” During Independence, if we fought for the right to life, then do we have it today? Are we living our life with dignity? Do we get justice? It’s the state’s responsibility. But I realized that despite everything, we haven’t been able to achieve this. When we started researching for the film, it looked like we had 100 years of genocide but the main theme of the film is right to life. We are in the final stages of writing “The Delhi Files”.
Q: You’ve been in the Hindi film industry for nearly two decades now. Do you think it has changed for the better or worse?
A: When there’s a change, it has both the elements (good and bad). I would say the change has been for good also and for bad also. When I started my career in 2005, the industry was not so organized and everybody was in the race of copying Hollywood films. But there was some native intelligence which understood the pulse of the typical Indian middle-class audience. That’s why till about 2000, films were always rooted in some social evil; and the core element was always connected to Indian stories, Indian problems and Indian heroes. There was also some kind of a faith system—in most of the films, towards the end, you’ll see somebody go to some mandir, dargah or church. So, there was a belief that there was a higher power and when we get into very complex problems of life, then keeping faith helps. This reflected the mindset of the society.
But when the second generation of filmmakers (after Raj Kapoor, Guru Dutt, Makan Sahib, Yash Chopra) came in, they had no connection with India. They studied abroad and had a very privileged upbringing. Their worldview was “why were we born in India?” and they made films that had global appeal. Technologically, the Indian film industry advanced and we became good in areas like VFX, editing and digital programming of music. But we lost out on plots, characters and music rooted in India—this suddenly got deleted from Bollywood scripts and we were catering to the NRI audience. Post Shah Rukh Khan, our filmmaking changed right from the costumes to music to locations to dialogues (which had a lot of English). We started losing the audience. I find today’s audience is very superficial and they come to see cinema for reasons other than cinema. This is the change I have observed.
Q: In 2023, you also announced a three-part Mahabharata film called “Parva”.
A: Making the Mahabharat should be, can be, ought to be every filmmaker’s dream. Not because it has anything to do with religion but because it is the greatest story ever written. It’s like a “maha samundar” of stories. Mahabharat represents human life of 5,000 years and it is relevant today and will be relevant tomorrow because it’s a story about us. It takes into account the changing dynamics of society. For example, whether we need artificial intelligence (AI) or not. You find many answers in the Mahabharata. You choose one solution according to your own dharma or you get attracted and you start thinking along those lines. You have drama, misogyny, sexism, racism, betrayal, manipulation, strategizing, and war. But I never ever thought that I would make it. I want Mahabharata to be treated like history and not like mythology. It’s not mythology, it’s pure history. Kannada writer Dr S.L. Bhyrappa wrote Parva (Epoch)—he conducted extensive research (seven years) and travelled to all the places on this journey. Parva is one of the best interpretations of Mahabharata.
I suggested to actor-director Prakash Belawadi, who did the play Parva in Kannada, to enact it in English. Dr Bhyrappa came from Mysuru to Bengaluru for the first show in 2023, which I also attended, and that’s when we announced the film as well. Now, I have a team of historians and Mahabharata experts and we’re doing our own research as well. I’ll helm this project post “The Delhi Files”.
Q: As a filmmaker, do you think that local content and stories are not explored enough?
A: They’re not at all explored and I don’t understand why. Because whenever people make films based on local stories, they work so wonderfully. Just to give you an example of two Marathi films, Sairat, which was a blockbuster, and Baipan Bhari Deva, which was a beautiful film about six sisters. I’ve seen so many culturally-rooted Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu and Bengali films. The problem is Bollywood. People think Bollywood is the father of all filmmaking but this is a myth. The big box office numbers come from Bollywood and there’s a myth that these Hindi films are pan-Indian films. This is not true.
Q: You’ve spoken a lot about creative consciousness.
A: This comes from my own understanding. We’re trying to be happy, peaceful, prosperous and successful (in terms of leaving behind a legacy). I realize that the problem today is because of this forced narrative, especially the communal narrative which divides people—you’re either on my side or the evil side. I call this the tribal consciousness, which believes that my tribe has all the rights and the other tribes should be killed. Then we slowly move into its social consciousness. The concept of success then becomes a good job, pretty wife, handsome husband, nice house, etc. Now, in that very definition, there is a race that my success is bigger than yours. But every single time you’ll find someone more successful than you. But we’re never thinking about what brings success—this comes from your strength. The greatest strength of a human being is creativity. How are you creating value in your own life? My idea is that we are all born Buddhas. Buddha here simply means a person with ideas. And God has gifted us with imagination—animals can’t imagine. Human beings can express themselves with words, expressions, their craft, their talent, and so on. All I say is rise up to that consciousness. It’s not that your mind is separate from your body. Just believe in the creation, the creator, and your own power to create. This is what the creative consciousness I want young Indians to believe in.
Q: Do you believe that Hindu philosophy can transform your life?
A: I am a great believer of Hindu philosophy and I’m trying to spread the concepts of Hindu philosophy in my talks. Hindu philosophy has multiple concepts—concepts of cosmos, human life, health, administration, politics, even what happens after we die. The greatest minds in the world (like scientists, philosophers) have often referred to and been inspired by Vedanta. The western world divides mind and body into two different concepts but we don’t. We have the concept of Advaita (non-dualism) but we also have Dvaita (dualism). We have Charvaka philosophy for those who believe in materialism. So, there is a type of Hindu philosophy for every type of belief—I find a lot of strength in this. I believe that our philosophy addresses universal principles and it’s a seeker’s philosophy. And that’s why it’s called Sanatan—Sanatan is not a religion. It is the quality of this philosophy, Dharma-based philosophy, that is called Sanatan. I’m a believer of Dharma, which is Sanatan, which means universal principles—eternal principles—which I find very easily comprehensible from Hindu philosophy.
Q: We talk a lot about Nari Shakti but atrocities against women are committed in India every day.
A: I’m talking from a purely India standpoint—I think despite everything, the life of a woman in India is very traumatic. I’m not saying this based on research, I’m saying this based on the women I know in my life and my travels where I interact with so many people. To give you an example, after a talk, there are youngsters who want to take selfies with you. Girls and boys come in a group and you find these boys falling all over these girls who are uncomfortable and they just get pushed out or move away. This is very symbolic of Indian society. You don’t dare to do this in the US where women are objectified much more than here. Somewhere we believe that we can push around women; this psychology which is reflected depends on your education, background, mental makeup, etc. Just look around and see the body language of a woman versus a man. There’s no respect for a woman’s privacy or dignity—it’s a subconscious thing which men are not sometimes aware of. We believe that a man has to protect a woman and subconsciously a woman also feels she needs to be protected by a man. For instance, we don’t let women go out alone late at night. This attitude is reflected in our films, in the media, etc. This mindset needs to change in India—women are strong and this is what I have shown in my films as well. I want women to be shown as problem-solvers. As long as men believe they need to protect women and solve the problems, this attitude will not change. In the film industry where I work, the women who work on film sets (like ADs, assistants, etc) don’t even have proper toilet facilities. They are very conscious about what they wear and even if someone makes a pass at them, they just have to laugh it off. The sad part is even powerful actresses—except for one or two—have raised their voices about this. We have to change society at the psychological level, education is not enough.
Q: What is your take on the Citizenship Amendment Act?
A: I have discussed a lot about this earlier and I debated it point by point. They want to paint it as anti-Muslim Act which it is not. Let’s see what happens.