When cinema ends, and life begins

The media buzz cannot get louder about the possible political entry of the film actors Rajinikanth and Kamal Hassan. I have many reasons to think that these two actors have no chance whatsoever of playing a significant role in politics whether they join an existing political party or launch their own political vehicle. I am not the only one to think so. The BJP, of course, desperate to gain foothold in the state, is of course more than interested in the actors.

All such desires refer to the inimitable example of MGR. The specific historical context in which the film actor Marudur Gopalamenon Ramachandran (MGR), could become such a powerful political leader, I think, can never be repeated. The reason is simple. He was part of the amazingly widespread grass root mobilization that the political party called the DMK undertook by making the rhetorical innovation in the language of Tamil metonymically stand for political consciousness and the egalitarian aspirations of the historical block of non-brahmins. Hence all the sound and fury of the present moment not only signify nothing for me but annoy me endlessly. It is however relevant to ask whymedia obsession with the political entry of film actors is reaching a crescendo now.

The reason unfolds with the much touted theory of political vacuum. Since the demise of MG Ramachandran in 1987, two leaders dominated the state politics, J Jayalalitha of the AIADMK, and

M Karunanidhi of the DMK. The former died in February this year and the latter soon after became inactive due to age related ailments. Despite the massive state wide network of the two parties, the absence/withdrawal of these leaders is deemed to have created a political vacuum. To me, such an imaginary of vacuum is symptomatic of the myopic view of politics. In the DMK, Karunanidhi’s long groomed son and party successor,

MK Stalin is generally seen to be in command of the situation. The situation in AIADMK is not good, with the BJP shamelessly manipulating the second tier leaders, arm twisting them to submit to its diktat. However, the family of Jayalalitha’s companion, Sasikala, appears resilient and may manage to shore up the party structure if and when the elections come. Further, there are other political parties in the state. So, what vacuum is the media talking about and why are film actors expected to fill the gap?

If one is to fully unpack this perception of vacuum, one should recall the discourse on “stagnation” that pervaded the state during 2016 elections. This perception of political stagnation was developed around the regular shift in power between the two major political parties, the DMK and AIADMK, since 1967. The national parties and other smaller regional parties regularly align with one of the two. This is often described as political stagnation rather than as political stability. If economic development is a measure of progress, the development indicators of the state favorably compare with most states in India, particularly in the social sector and welfare measures. If this is the case, what exactly has stagnated?

The perception of stagnation rather rises from a teleological view of history, where the polity achieves ideal state of equality, well being and universal moral conduct resulting in perfect democracy. Instead of marching towards such

utopia, the lament is that the polity is seen mired in corruption, nepotism, and politics of familial succession at the leadership level.

Such utopist imaginations of perfect society are often the narrative thrust of popular films. For example, director Shankar, ends his blockbusters with such scenes of universal order and well being. It is easier to blame political stagnation for all the existing problems than study the complex processes in which power consolidates and disperses through the uneven turf of capitalist development and the multi form phenomenology of nation state; hence, the longing for a lone ranger hero who would set everything right.

The real vacuum is the lack of ideologically informed political thought which leads to vacuous cries against corruption, nepotism and family rule. This longing for “pure” and “honest” political leader prepares the template for political fantasy which film actors who play lone ranger heroes naturally walk into. However, the existing conditions in the grass root have other stories. There, people need the real life political actors to negotiate with various arms of the state. They need the local political functionary to ensure the efficient working of schemes and officials. The film actors cannot serve any purpose there. The vast network of grass root level functionaries of the DMK and the AIADMK negotiate with every agency of the state for the people. Of course, bribes and commissions may be routine, but it is part of the service delivery. Despite all imperfections of the million everyday operations, the political can never experience vacuum or stagnation.

The media discourse has no patience for the contradictions of everyday life. It craves for the fantasy of universal well being and perfect order. It cannot but pander to the sensationalism of the film hero in politics, thereby merging the fantasy world of the vigilante hero with that of the real world of politics. But people, interestingly, know where cinema ends and life begins. Which is why, Rajni Kanth and Kamal Hassan may have to contend themselves with the media glare they get, in my understanding and estimate.

(The author is an assistant professor at the Ambedkar University, Delhi)