Challenging Caste, Reproducing Hegemony:
A Gramscian Comparative Study of Sujata and Article 15
Prajakta J. Meshram
PhD research scholar in English
Kamla Nehru Mahavidyalaya
RTM Nagpur University
Maharashtra, India
Abstract:
Cinema
is not only a medium that reflects reality but also an important cultural
institution that produces and circulates specific ideologies and values in
societies. In Indian cinema, caste-centred films are often celebrated for their
reformist content. However, these films can also play an essential role in
perpetuating caste dominance. This research paper comparatively analyses the
films Sujata and Article 15 through the lens of
Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony. This study intends to understand
how cinema portrays caste and how the ideology behind this portrayal operates.
Even though these two films appear to oppose caste discrimination, an upper-caste
character remains at the centre of the narrative as the agent of change. Thus,
the experience and struggles of Dalits are portrayed from an upper-caste
perspective. Dalit characters are either not given any agency to act or their
impulsive actions are minimised in importance. This study will explore
narrative structures, the placement of upper-caste and Dalit characters in the
selected films, and specific film techniques to understand the direction and
agency of social transformation.
Keywords: Cultural hegemony, Caste,
Gandhian/Ambedkarite ideology, Dalit representation, Savarna Saviour complex
Introduction
The persistence of caste in the contemporary world is a
strange paradox in Indian society. The Indian Constitution has guaranteed the
right to equality for all; has banned untouchability; has initiated various
social reform movements over the years; and yet today, caste still shapes
social relations, cultural practices, access to resources, and power dynamics.
Caste is not sustained merely by laws and social institutions; instead, it is
constantly recreated through the practices, beliefs, values, and ideologies of
people’s daily lives. Surinder Jodhka argues, “The process of modernisation
would weaken caste and eventually replace it with ‘modern’ structures based on
individual achievement” (Jodhka5). However, while modernisation has reduced
some overt forms of the caste system, the importance of caste remains deeply entrenched
in Indian society. This is because caste can take new forms over time, carving
out a place for itself within modern society and often retaining its influence
even in seemingly modern social systems.
Cinema does not function merely as a source of
entertainment in modern societies; rather, it is a vital cultural institution.
Cinema influences many aspects of human life, including people’s thoughts,
values, and perception of society. Through character portrayal, narration,
cinematography, and the underlying philosophy, cinema depicts social reality,
culture, identity, and power relations. Cinema does not just mirror reality; it
also influences it. Cinema circulates certain ideas, norms, conceptions, and
social rules, thereby legitimising them. This has a significant effect on how
people think about themselves and others. Cinema has an extensive reach and,
hence, raises social awareness and influences the collective mind. This
understanding of cinema as an active cultural force finds support in the work
of cultural theorist Stuart Hall. According to Hall, “the production and
circulation of meaning take place through culture and language…meaning is
thought to be produced-constructed-rather than simply found…culture is
conceptualised as a primary or ‘constitutive’ process…not merely a reflection
of the world after the event” (Hall 5-6). Therefore, meanings are not
inherently embedded in social reality but are produced through representation.
In this way, films do not merely depict society but actively participate in
constructing our understandings of identity, power relations, and social
realities.
The relationship between cinema and caste is not limited
merely to the representation or visibility of caste groups in films. While a
film can depict social injustice, it can simultaneously reinforce existing
power relations, the structure of dominance, and specific social imaginations. This
contradiction becomes more apparent through Antonio Gramsci’s concept of
cultural hegemony. While there is no single, fixed definition of cultural
hegemony, Gramsci provides a defining framework in his famous book, Selection
from the Prison Notebook, describing it as: “the 'spontaneous' consent
given by the great masses of the population to the direction imposed on social
life by the dominant fundamental group” (Gramsci 12). This consent is historically
constructed, yet the public remains largely unaware of it because it operates
so subtly. Dominant groups present their ideas and values so effectively that
they appear natural, appropriate and universally beneficial. This consent
operates through institutions such as education, religion, politics, and
culture, where the presented ideas and values are gradually considered “common
sense”. Cultural media, particularly films, play an important role in this
process. Cinema does not merely reflect social reality; it actively shapes how
people view, interpret, and think about society.
The Gramscian viewpoint proves to be very useful for the
study of caste in films. Caste is not merely a system of social stratification,
but it is also a cultural and ideological structure. It is deeply rooted in
people’s daily lives, thoughts, and behaviour. Social hierarchy, religious
customs, and the ideas of purity-impurity play an important role in allowing
the caste system to persist. Thus, when analysing films dealing with caste, it
is not sufficient to ask whether a film opposes or supports caste
discrimination. Instead, such films should be studied along these three
important axes: The Epistemological: What kind of knowledge or understanding
does the film create regarding caste and society? Which ideas does it consider
true? The agential: Who gets the opportunity to make decisions, to struggle,
and to bring change in the film? Who is portrayed as a main figure, and who is
portrayed merely as a character who bears the consequences of others’ actions?
The ideological: Which vision of social change does the film present? Does the
film consider change possible and necessary, or does it try to maintain the
status quo? Thus, studying films centred on caste reveals not only their
messages but also deep insights into the ideas they establish about society,
power, and social change.
This study is based on a comparative analysis of two
important films in the Hindi film industry: Sujata (1950) and Article
15 (2019). Although these two films were made in distinct eras, they are
united by their engagement with the theme of caste-based oppression. Sujata was
released in the post-independence era. During that time, the nation was
promoting social equality, secularism, and national integrity. In this film,
the problem of untouchability is approached from a humanitarian perspective,
seeking to affect social reform by eliciting sympathy for a Dalit protagonist
among the audience. On the other hand, the Article 15 film draws sharp
attention to the grim reality of caste discrimination in modern India. It
highlights the systematic injustices, the role of administrative machinery, and
the difficulties in securing constitutional justice. This film makes a
significant intervention in the ongoing societal discussion surrounding caste,
equality, citizenship, and rape.
Objectives
·
To analyse how these two films challenge
dominant caste ideologies through their narratives and characters
·
To identify the hegemonic assumptions,
values, and power structures that are reproduced despite anti-caste films
·
To compare the representation of Dalit
agency, resistance, and social transformation in Sujata and Article
15
Methodology
This study employs a qualitative comparative textual
analysis to examine caste and cultural hegemony in the films Sujata and Article
15, using Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony as its theoretical
framework. This study examines how the resistance is portrayed, which ideals
and values are prioritised, who drives social reform, and how prevailing
ideologies are challenged or reproduced. Particular attention is paid to
narrative, characterisation, dialogue, and visual symbols. Although these films
were created in different historical periods, both address the anti-caste
theme; thus, this study analyses whether a shift in narrative structure and
character development has occurred across this significant time gap.
Additionally, the study illustrates the hegemonic ideologies embedded within
the films.
Circulating Consent through Gandhian Cinema
To understand the role of Gandhian ideology in Sujata,
it is essential to analyse the film’s specific historical and social context.
Based on the short story by Subodh Ghosh, the film Sujata approached the themes
of humanity and morality. Bimal Roy, the director of the film, who is himself
an upper-caste Brahmin, has presented this subject within the framework of
Gandhian ideology. This Gandhian ethical grammar focuses on the affective
conversion of the dominant caste, the acceptance of Dalits in society, and the
fostering of social cohesion. This ideological tendency is closely aligned with
the post-independence era (1947-1960). In those times, Gandhian philosophies
had immense importance in politics, literature, cinema and society. Gandhi was
known as the father of the nation, a proponent of non-violence, and the leader
of Harijans, working to eradicate untouchability. Against this background,
films like Sujata embraced Gandhian values.
A significant example of Gandhian ideology is visually
evident when Sujata discovers that she is an orphan, an untouchable girl raised
by an upper-caste family. Due to this disclosure, a severe intrinsic distress
arises whereby she experiences intense self-disgust and anguish. This is a kind
of psychological reaction which is itself ideologically symptomatic because it
remains within the domain of individual emotional suffering instead of
institutional exploitation. The moment of existential displacement is presented
cinematically at Gandhi Ghat, where Gandhi’s statue occupies a prominent visual
position. This statue does not merely provide a geographical detail but
functions as a moral mediator who addresses suffering created by caste
exclusion and indirectly resolves it. Instead of shifting the audience's focus
to the structural matrix of caste that compelled Sujata’s exclusion, the
narrative employs Gandhian iconography to transform that structural violence
into the emotional language of compassion and reconciliation. The most
important part of this scene was when Sujata was about to commit suicide, and
her loose end was stuck in the inscription beneath Gandhiji’s statue. The
inscription is “How to die? By committing suicide? Never! If necessary, die
to stay alive". From this incident, the Gandhian message is that one
should not end one's life by opting for self-destruction, but should struggle
while living in society. The presence of Gandhi’s statue comforts her and
provides her with ethical guidance.
The Gandhian ideology of the film Sujata is clearly
evident in the conversation between Sujata and Adhir. The film does not seek to
address the issue of untouchability through social, economic, or political
analysis; instead, Adhir's dialogues glorify the ideal example of Gandhi's
adaptation of an untouchable girl, Lakshmi, at Sabarmati Ashram. The film
conveys the message that social change can occur through the moral and
humanitarian perspective of a great person. Gandhi’s altruistic efforts to
eradicate untouchability are glorified. From a Gramscian perspective, this is
an attempt to create hegemonic common sense. Caste injustice is presented as a
consequence of a lack of morality rather than social and political power relations.
The greatest paradox regarding Gandhi and Ambedkar is that, although Gandhi
worked to eradicate untouchability, he always upheld the fundamental
hierarchical structure. While responding to Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste,
he states, “How can a Muslim remain one if he rejects the Quran, or a Christian
remain Christian if he rejects the Bible? If caste and varna are
convertible terms and if varna is an integral part of the Shastras,
which define Hinduism, I do not know how a person who rejects caste, i.e.
varna, can call himself a Hindu” (Ambedkar 87). Gandhi opposes untouchability
but approves the hierarchical structure of caste. Thus, the social structure
remained constant, which was responsible for caste discrimination.
Directed by Anubhav Sinha, the film Article 15 is
an intense commentary on caste injustice in the contemporary world. This film
is based on Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, which prohibits
discrimination based on caste, religion, gender, lineage, or birthplace. Thus,
the film draws attention to the constitutional values of equality and justice.
However, no single sentence mentions the creator of the Constitution. If we
look through the lens of the Gramscian perspective, an important ideological
paradox is reflected in the film. The essential ideological paradox is
explicitly seen in the opening scene of Article 15. The villagers of Laalgaon
have been seen singing folk songs about their difficult social lives and the
discrimination they face. Dr Ambedkar’s icon is also seen during that scene.
The importance of that icon during that scene is to identify the community. The
community is not only poor but also belongs to the Dalit caste. The film uses
Ambedkar’s iconography, blue scarves, and the Bhim Army, suggesting it is
connected to his thoughts, but all these references are only symbolic. The film
does not present an in-depth study of Ambedkar’s ideas and his social and
political philosophies. The liberations of Dalits, their political leadership,
social organisation, the concept of annihilation of caste, religious conversion
and fundamental critique of Brahmanical structure, all of these Ambedkar’s
values are sidelined in the film.
The character Ayan Ranjan, an upper-caste Brahmin IPS
officer, echoes Gandhian ideology, in which responsibility and leadership for
social change and caste injustice are assigned to Savarna, whose moral awakening
compels him to fight injustice. The ending of this film provides explicit
clarity of Gandhian ideology. After rescuing the victimised Dalit girl and the
culprits are punished, Ayan and his associate officers sit together on the
floor, and they share a meal. This scene is portrayed as a symbol of social
unity and equality, with people from different castes eating together. This
scene takes on significant importance when the instrumental version of Gandhi's
favourite bhajan, “Vaishnav Jan To”, is played in the background, extolling the
one who feels the pain of others. Thus, the film's ending is connected to
Gandhian morality. Due to such actions, a symbolic message against caste
discrimination is conveyed. However, direct questions are not raised about the
social, economic, and political structures responsible for caste inequality.
Although both films, Sujata and Article 15, depict caste
exploitation, they prioritise a Gandhian perspective over Ambedkar’s
revolutionary and radical ideas. Even though these two films were produced in
different historical eras, their representations of the issues rely heavily on
Gandhian values of social harmony and moral transformation. In contrast, Dr
Ambedkar argued that the entire caste structure is inherently unjust and
demanded the total annihilation of caste. The film Sujata opposes
untouchability primarily through the lenses of compassion, love, humanity, and
personal changes. The ending of the film Sujata is based on the Gandhian
concept of a “change of heart”. Ultimately, the upper-caste characters in the
film accept Sujata, not because of her personality or an awareness of her human
rights. It mainly happens when Sujata donates her blood to save Charu.
Therefore, the change of heart occurs due to the sacrifice and unquestionable
service of a Dalit girl.
In this film, a “change of heart” among upper-caste
characters is presented as a solution to the problem; however, it fails to
critique the caste system itself as the root cause. This approach directly
mirrors Dr Ambedkar’s historical critique of Gandhian reformism. Ambedkar
argued that untouchability is not a separate problem within Hindu society;
rather, it is an integral part of the broader caste structure. Therefore,
merely eradicating untouchability without dismantling the caste system itself
will never be sufficient. Similarly, the film Article 15 indirectly glorifies
Gandhian ideology, suggesting that caste injustice can be solved through the
social and moral consciousness of upper-caste leadership. Yatendra Nigam argues
in his article, “filmmakers took the onus on them to substantiate his claim as
the sole representative of Dalits and took the lead in establishing MK Gandhi’s
philosophical model that Dalits are integral parts of Hindu society and they
will be assimilated into the Hindu social system by changing the heart of
upper-caste Hindus and not by the way of propionate representation and equality
before the law as propounded by Dr. Ambedkar, a Dalit” (Nigam 124). Ambedkar
wanted to liberate Dalits, and Gandhi wanted to assimilate them. Liberation
from the caste structure is the ultimate solution to all caste-related
problems. However, both films fail to depict his ideology; even his immense
contribution to their liberation is overlooked, and Gandhi and his ideology are
portrayed as the ultimate resolution to untouchability and caste.
Hegemonic Representation of Dalits and Savarna
There is a significant similarity between the Sujata and
Article 15 films: a structural tendency to critique caste discrimination and
convey a message of equality, while delegating responsibility for social
transformation to a Savarna protagonist. On the other hand, Dalit characters
are not depicted as proactive advocates for their rights; rather, their roles
are relegated to subordinate, limited positions. The films portrayed injustice
against Dalits, but the leadership to fight against it is given to Savarna
characters. Therefore, an impression is created that social transformation does
not occur, not because Dalit activism is not driven per se, but because of the
social awakening of Savarnas and their interference. A “common sense” is
formulated that Dalits are incapable of bringing change, and they often require
the assistance of upper-caste people. Consequently, Sujata and Article 15 may
appear progressive, but they do not entirely challenge the existing hegemony.
In Gramscian terms, this is not a real anti-hegemonic change but a ‘passive
revolution’, in which the system appears to have transformed. However, the
fundamental power structure and leadership remain unchanged.
The characterisation of Sujata is indicative of a
specific tendency found in post-independence Hindi films. In accordance with
this tendency, Dalit characters are not portrayed as struggling, politically
conscious, or agents of change; rather, they are depicted as docile, assertive,
and dependent on others. Sujata fits perfectly into this “grateful Harijan”
frame.
She is lovable, assertive, sensitive, and good-hearted,
and because of these qualities, she wins the audience's sympathy and is
accepted as a romantic actress. She is intentionally characterised in such a
way. If Sujata were portrayed as a struggling Dalit woman, it would have been
difficult for the commercial Hindi film industry of that time to accept it and
for her to emerge as a bearer of Ambedkarite ideology. Runa Chakraborty
Paunksnis argues, “the presence of a poised, articulate, and beautiful Sujata in
the midst of other non-descript, servile and lousy Dalit characters
problematise the film’s putative claim of defying caste bigotry” (Paunksnis
149). This reveals the narrow limits in how the film portrays Dalits. Its
attempts at social reform ultimately stay trapped within those limits.
Sujata’s inaction is not accidental; it is an integral
part of the film. Sujata constantly endeavours to overcome caste discrimination
and humiliation. She is constantly reminded of her untouchable origin. Sujata’s
upper-caste foster parents had a fondness for her, yet she experienced
exclusion, humiliation and otherness. The narrative does not provide her with
the opportunity to critically analyse her experience and raise a voice against
the unequal temperament in the family. Apart from this, the film does not
depict Sujata as having any connection to any Dalit community. She lacks social
support, has low political awareness, and there is no framework for collective
struggle. Thus, the main role goes to the upper-caste character Adheer, who
challenges domestic and social customs, speaks out against untouchability and
caste, and attempts to bring about change. Consequently, Sujata’s ideological
journey transforms Adheer, and he emerges as a protagonist who stands up against
injustice. The narrative does not provide her with the opportunity to
critically analyse her experience and raise a voice against the unequal
temperament in the family. Even though she is the film's protagonist, the
ideological role is played by her foster father, Upendranath, and her lover,
Adheer. They criticise caste injustice and attempt to assimilate her into the
family. As a result, instead of remaining an active agent fighting against
injustice, she becomes the object of sympathy. Her pain is depicted in the
film, but the right to convert this pain into social criticism lies with
Savarna characters, who hold influential positions in society and whose
opinions are considered important.
Article 15
depicts the modern form of the Savarna Saviour concept. The issue of
representation observed in Hindi films in the post-independence era is seen in
this film in new forms. Anubhav Sinha presented the grounded, brutal reality of
caste injustice and violence that few Hindi films have ever represented.
However, the central story is of an IPS Brahmin officer, Ayan Rajan. The
audience understands the reality of the caste system through his experience.
Thus, Dalits have been in a subordinate position, who are the real bearers of
caste injustice for ages. The story narrates the journey of an enlightened
character from the privileged caste. As Nandhana Prem argues, rather than
centring a Dalit perspective, the film remains “hinging on the trope of Brahmin
Saviour, producing a representational logic in which “the film only attempts to
present the good Savarna who is on his mission to emancipate Dalits but fails
to recognise that he controls the entire speech, barely leaving anything for
the Dalits to speak" (Prem).
The characterisation of Ayan Rajan reveals the film's
ideological paradox. Ayan is depicted as a young, modern, and educated officer
who studied and lived in Delhi and Europe. At the beginning of the film, he
seems ignorant and innocent about the caste system. However, the film does not
critique his ignorance; rather, it presents it as a consequence of his
background. Rather than critiquing Ayan’s ignorance, the film explains his
ignorance. The narrative portrays Ayan as a good and sensitive Upper-caste Hero.
Thus, two groups of Brahmin are formed—one who fights and another who are
unjust. The film critiques some caste-oriented Brahmins while simultaneously
presenting an enlightened Brahmin officer who is justice-oriented and
transformative. Thus, the supremacy of the privileged caste remains as it is.
Anubhav Sinha states in an interview why he deliberately opted for a Brahmin
hero because, “it is the privileged who should challenge privilege, because the
privileged have created this system” (Sinha). The question arises, then: where
is the Dalit hero? If there is no Dalit hero and the film only presents
Brahmins as saviours, keeping Dalits in stereotypical characters, it reinforces
that Dalits are inherently incapable of resisting their oppression and always
need a saviour, particularly a Savarna.
The death of Dalit girls serves as a moral awakening of
the Savarna character. The parents and other Dalit characters are seen as
afraid, insecure, and needy for help. Nishad is the only strong, fearless Dalit
character in this film. Compared to other Dalit characters, the one who is
active, aware, and ready to fight injustice. However, Nishad's role is not
entirely liberal or central. His struggle and brilliance have been appreciated
in the film; still, Nishad’s struggle and political role are connected to
Ayan's leadership. Moreover, a character like Nishad is murdered midway through
the film, providing further scope for Ayan to demonstrate his valour. The
silence of Dalits in these films gives Ayan space to roar. The end of this
film, as I earlier discussed in the first section, glorifies Savarna’s
assimilation of Dalits within the Hindu community. When Ayan asks the lady from
whom he buys food, “What is your caste, Amma?”Her answer gets drowned out by
the vehicle’s voice, and everyone laughs. It is the good-hearted Brahim Ayan
who shares the food now. Thus, even a realistic portrayal of caste injustice,
the film glorifies the Savarna saviour over Dalit leadership.
Conclusion
The comparative study of the films Sujata and Article 15
reveals that films that critique caste injustice do not necessarily challenge
caste supremacy. Both films were produced in different eras, yet their
narratives glorify upper-caste characters. The Savarna characters drive the
main responsibility. Dalit characters and their suffering and violence are used
as objects to accelerate this moral awakening of upper-caste characters. This
disposition is not coincidental but rather a deep-rooted cultural and
ideological reflection of Indian society. The privileged caste does not deny
the transformation they assimilate within their frame. Both films prioritise
Gandhian ideology over Ambedkar’s ideology of annihilation of caste. These
films create awareness of caste injustice, but the fundamental structure of
social and political power relations is maintained. Furthermore, the study
demonstrates that if Indian Hindi cinema wants to embody a truly progressive,
counter-hegemonic role, it must go beyond the Savarna-centred narrative. Dalit
characters should be portrayed as historical strugglers and warriors of caste
injustice. The depiction of this kind of narrative inspires the exploited
section of society and will help create a political consciousness for change.
Works Cited
Ambedkar, B. R. Annihilation of Caste, Samyak Prakashan,
2019.
Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks.
Edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. Aakar, 2020.
Ghosh, Devarsi.
"Anubhav Sinha on Why 'Article 15' Has a Brahmin Hero: 'The Privileged
Should Challenge Privilege.'" Scroll, 1 July 2019,
https://scroll.in/reel/928925/anubhav-sinha-on-why-article-15-has-a-brahmin-hero-the-privileged-should-challenge-privilege
Hall, Stuart. Representation: Cultural Representation and
Signifying Practices. Sage Publications, 2003.
Jodhka, Surinder.
“Ascriptive Hierarchies: Caste and Its Reproduction in Contemporary India.” Current
Sociology, vol.64, no. 2, pp. 1–16.https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392115614784
Nigam, Yatendra Kumar.
"Development of Dalits and Gandhi in Indian Cinema: A Study from a Dalit
Perspective." International Journal of Humanities and Social Science
Invention, vol. 8, no. 1, 2019, pp. 124–128.
Paunksnis, Runa
Chakraborty. "Dalit Women in Hindi Films: A Study of Sujata and Article
15." Zeitschrift für Indologie und Südasienstudien, vol. 38, 2021,
pp. 136–158. ResearchGate,2021.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362517863_Dalit_Women_in_Hindi_Films_A_study_of_Sujata_and_Article_15.
Prem, Nandhana. "A
Critique on Article 15: Unravelling the Brahmin Saviour Complex." Round
Table India, 12 July
2019,www.roundtableindia.co.in/a-critique-on-article-15-unravelling-the-brahmin-saviour-complex/
Roy,
Bimal, Dir. Sujata. Perf. Lalita Pawar, Nutan, Shashikala, Sunil Datt,
Tarun Bose, Bimal Roy Production, 1959. Film.
https://youtu.be/wyhNzpk1MrE?si=8tSnc-udkF2nTzhy
Sinha,
Anubhav, Dir. Article 15. Perf. Ayushmann Khurrana, Nassar, Manoj Pahwa,
Kumud Mishra, Sayani Gupta, Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub.Banaras Media Works, Zee
Studios, 2019. Film. https://www.netflix.com/in/title/81154455?s=a&trkid=13747225&trg=cp&vlang=en&clip=81184159