Female Agency, Nationalism and Representation in Dil Se ।। Triveni Goswami

With respect to gender politics, Dil Se is highly problematic. Amar’s behaviour towards Meghna is abusive as he often tries and even succeeds to be physically intimate with her, without her consent. The film romanticizes such intimacy in the name of passionate love.।। মুক্ত চিন্তা, দশম বছৰ, দ্বিতীয় সংখ্যা, চেপ্টেম্বৰ, ২০২৪ ।।

To love, against all odds is intrinsic to Indian cinema. Mani Ratnam’s Dil Se, released in 1998, is perhaps a gem of a movie exemplifying the Indian audience’s preference for such a love story. In Dil Se, love is passionate, illogical, unrealistic and beats all odds. It is a transgressor of political ideologies and philosophical questions. In Dil Se, love doesn’t simply form the core of the plot but rather is the cold, biting wind that flutters across the screen, making its viewers shudder at the thought of such a love.
While not a movie without its flaws, Dil Se questioned the idea of nationalism in the 50th year of India’s independence. On our 77th year of Independence, when I look at back at Dil Se, I look back at a brave film, one that brought to screen many debates that were never discussed before in mainstream Bollywood. What makes the movie even more interesting is the role of women, and the position they acquire in the political framework of the movie.

How does Dil Se position its gender politics?
As an audience, we first come across Meghna (played by Monisha Koirala) at the beginning of the movie, as she sits quietly, wrapped in a black shawl. As the shawl slips away Meghna’s bright, raw beauty is revealed alongside her perpetual, deadening silence. We barely hear from Meghna throughout the film, despite her having significant screen time. Once we see her face, while a storm rages behind her, we understand why Amar (played by Shah Rukh Khan) would fall for her, head over toes, to the extent of madness. Amar who keeps nagging her for attention, to the point of irritation, is asked to fetch her a cup of chai. Upon returning with a chai, drenched in love and in rain, Amar finds that Meghna left in a train. Then begins a series of coincidences and deliberate plotting where Amar pursues Meghna, with the intention of marrying her, and is rejected by her every single time.
With respect to gender politics, Dil Se is highly problematic. Amar’s behaviour towards Meghna is abusive as he often tries and even succeeds to be physically intimate with her, without her consent. The film romanticizes such intimacy in the name of passionate love. However, no romantic ideology can justify non-consensual behaviour. Moreover, Amar pursues Meghna despite receiving clear indications that she was not interested in him. Much like most movies in the 90s, Dil Se doesn’t find stalking problematic. Rather the plot progression of the movie relies on the fact that he stalks her to Leh, where most of their romance develops.
Not undermining its flawed gender politics, the character of Meghna is endowed with agency, opinions, intellect and emotional maturity, nevertheless. It would have been easier to position the politics of Dil Se had Meghna been casted in the mould of a victim. Her militant background, backed with strong separationist politics rooted in Assam, do not fall in sync with the majoritarian concept of nationalism loved and cherished by most Indians, including Amar himself. Had she simply been a victim of violence and sexual abuse, perhaps the average “nationalist” Indian could have accepted her character with greater ease. However, Meghna is a fully fleshed out character. Despite being under strict supervision by her teammates, she doesn’t hesitate to question her own ideology and belief system. She questions the idea of an independence rooted in violence, and her love for Amar is a marker of the questioning. Despite many attempts at brainwashing her, no team member could make Meghna do what she doesn’t deem fit to do. After all, how can one expect a silent storm wrapped in a black shawl, to simply obey? Meghna is endowed with enough intelligence to question her ideology and still fight for it. She goes ahead with the mission she was supposed to do, because she sees merit in her fight. As Meghna questions Amar standing on the ruins of Old Fort, she questions the history of an entire nation, and brings forth chopped remnants of India’s history, swept away in a corner by majoritarian politics.
Preeti (played by Preity Zinta) is not as intense as Meghna. While her role in the movie can be reduced to a side character contributing to somewhat of a love triangle, such a reduction would be detrimental to the role she plays. As a literary student, it is my forte to look beyond the obvious. Preeti brings to light shades of a world that is bubbly, optimistic and straightforward. It is impeccable the amount of agency she has in choosing a partner in an arranged marriage. She does not hesitate to ask Amar about his history with women, and even asks about his sexual history (a domain generally reserved by men). Moreover, she stands outside the romance of Amar and Meghna. She is most relatable to the average Indian audience, who can’t relate to Meghna’s plight or Amar’s madness; but can look at them with collective awe through the character of Preeti. Preeti, who is introduced in the second half of the movie, plays a crucial role in positioning Amar and Meghna together, rather than as two separate ideologies pulling the rope in opposite directions, as was the case in the first half of the movie. Through Preeti, we see the tragedy of the film: a romance that was destined to end in death, as is repeatedly chanted by the words written by Gulzar: Mujhe maut ke god mein sone de (Let me sleep in the arms of death).

How does Dil Se play out in terms of its representational politics?
Mani Ratnam’s directorial vision, coupled with Gulzar’s words and Rehman’s music brought to Indian cinema a love that should make Indians rethink their concepts of nationalism, violence and patriotism. The fact that questioning of this nature takes place through the character of a woman, makes it even more special. However, the film doesn’t sit well in terms of its representational politics. We end up seeing very less of Assam, and Meghna could have belonged to anywhere for there are very few markers of Assamese culture in her character formation, except the few Assamese words mumbled in between. Meghna is referred to as a girl with small eyes, by Amar, throughout the film. Racism is passed off without questioning and normalises the racist undertones that make Assamese and other Northeasterns an outsider in their own country. What doesn’t sit well at all is how conveniently the film takes up the issue of militancy and leaves it half-cooked. Militant and Separatist movements in Assam have always been a double-edged sword, and when put together with the history of violence inflicted by the Army, it forms a complicated political landscape. But rather than exploring this landscape, Ratnam abandons Assam and soon shifts its locale to Leh, treating locations more with aesthetics and less with respect to their politics.

In conclusion, Dil Se was ahead of its time for introducing ideas that were not brought to screen before. However, as the movie completes its 25th year, it is rather saddening that movies that could expand on the vision of Dil Se and correct its flaws, have not been made. Rather films with more regressive politics parade the landscape of Bollywood. As we look back at Dil Se, we must look back at a film that formed a steppingstone for greater heights to be achieved in Hindi cinema, where the northeast features with more prominence and women with greater agency, and ideas of nationalism questioned with greater force.