Newton: when satire meets “uncomfortable” politics

The film Newton (Director: Amit V Masurkar, 2017, Hindi) is a prime example of the resurgence of low-budget, politically sensitive films being helmed largely by young filmmakers in Bollywood. Not only are they breaking the rules of a commercially driven, box-office oriented industry, in doing so they are addressing issues that are considered “uncomfortable” or “untouchable” in Bollywood parlance, which also essentially means economically unviable for the producers of the film. Newton engages with questions of agency and autonomy of otherwise powerless and disenfranchised people in what some might call a functioning democracy while others term it as rather an overweight fledgling struggling to come to terms with diversity and difference. Bollywood has traditionally ignored the marginalized castes and communities in terms of cinematic representation, nearly always falling back on commercially viable stories around upper caste, primarily North Indian, Hindu men (and sometimes women). This darkly satirical film comes as the latest entrant to the growing list of films that have dared to tell the stories of the marginalized, examples being Masaan (Director: Neeraj Ghaywan, 2015, Hindi) and Ship of Theseus (Director: Anand Gandhi, 2013, bilingual) and Court (Director: Chaitanya Tamhane, 2015, Marathi), Fandry (Director: Nagraj Manjule, 2013, Marathi) and Sairaat (Director: Nagraj Manjule, 2016, Marathi). While Peddlers (Director: Vasan Bala, 2012, Hindi) was partially crowd-sourced, Liar’s Dice (Director: Geetu Mohandas, 2013, Hindi) tells the story of a woman’s journey from the extreme margins of the Indo-Tibetan borders to the Indian mainstream in search of her missing husband.

Masurkar’s film (co-written with Mayank Tiwari) brings to light a region in India afflicted with Naxalite (or Maoist) violence as well as the counter-violence of the state apparatus. Naxalism is the ideological moniker of a peasant uprising which began in 1967 in Naxalbari in West Bengal. The origins of the uprising can be traced to the split in 1967 of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), leading to the formation of the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist). Initially the movement had its centre in West Bengal. In later years, it spread into less developed areas of rural southern and eastern India, such as Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana through the activities of underground groups like the Communist Party of India (Maoist). The response of the state has been replete with counter-insurgent violence which peaked with the raising of an anti-Naxalite armed militia and the numerous instances of violation of basic human rights of the tribal communities that not only populate this region but also sustain the Naxalite forces. Newton takes an openly anti-state stand particularly with regard to the question of human rights violations by the military and paramilitary forces. For this alone, it’s selection as India’s official entry into the Oscar’s race in the Best Foreign Language film category could be seen as a surprise decision.

One of the highlights of the film – despite a shoe-string budget – remains the decision of the filmmaker to shoot on location in what is considered a “volatile” region. The local adivasis, according to the director Masurkar, were excited to see people with cameras and film equipment because no one ever dared to venture into those parts. Many of the local villagers became part of the film and are seen playing themselves – tribals terrified of both the Maoists as well as the security forces. In doing so, the film narrative calls into question conceptions of nation and nationalism, both of which are being thrown around as cannon fodder for an increasingly violent society seemingly seething with a murderous rage against religious minorities and backward castes. The story is told from the point of view of an outsider – the central protagonist Newton Kumar – who comes from an ostensibly backward caste and is well on his way towards upward social mobility through educational opportunity and a government job. When faced with the reality of the situation in the jungles of central India where he encounters burnt out villages and anti-state graffiti on the walls of the surviving huts, Newton is not only forced to rethink his beliefs but also gradually lose control over his initially undying faith in the strength of the system ultimately settling for a cynical view. In this way, the film also signifies the ignorance of the mainstream society for which the daily struggle of the adivasis is not even a matter of consideration, let alone discussion. Take for example, the matter of the Fifth Schedule of the Indian Constitution which grants inalienable rights to the adivasis over the forestlands they have inhabited for centuries. In a key sequence in the film the Patel or the headman of the village who – constitutionally – is the arbitrator and decision maker in a tribal village is steamrolled and disregarded by the paramilitary commander who barks orders at the cowering villagers. Through the character of Malko, the Block Level Officer – pejoratively termed a “local” (hence dangerous) by the paramilitary soldiers, the film provides insights into the tribal social structure and systems, their structural and systematic disenfranchisement and the absolute lack of empathy on the part of the state. As a result, democracy is not seen to have worked or succeeded in the region, primarily because the adivasis have never been provided a route of transition into the mainstream. Newton is notable for attempting to put forward a new cinematic narrative which combines comedy and satire to engage with extremely complex political issues such as the Maoist problem, caste, gender and human rights violations by security forces. While the traditional structure of the Indian film industry does not really allow for deviations, films like Newton are making a much-needed breakthrough which is not only a positive sign for Indian cinema but also Indian democracy as a whole.