Rajneeti: Is it fact or fiction?

Everybody is acknowledging the fact that 'Rajneeti' (Prakash Jha's latest movie) is a modern-day adaptation of Mahabharta, which goes on to imply that much has not changed since those days. However the film lags quite behind Mahabharta in its execution and at the same time it has its very strong points also but the first thing that comes to my mind is the debate on the historicity of our epics. There are people who have placed the epics like Ramayana and Mahabharta in the category of historical accounts and there are others who just call them our 'religious' scriptures (the holy books of Hindus). I think now the first step towards categorising and classifying these epics would be to try to classify this modern-day adaptation. My guess is that these epics have followed a similar route as this film. So how are we going to classify this movie – fact or fiction; a true representation or just a story? Well it is definitely a story. But what kind of? Is it the real life kept as it is or just inspired by some real-life incidents? To me it is both. For a story to be true, it need not be the case that each and every incident has to be kept and told as it has happened (that is probably history and not a work of art like cinema or novel or story). A true story is one which gives the crux of the historical incidents, historical meaning anything which has happened till just now, as it is. The soul of the story remains the same, the body may be completely different (this is what we call adaptation). This is what is being done in Rajneeti; and this is where it tells the same story as the biggest story of Mahabharta. And so we should be able to guess the extent to which Mahabharta is a historical account and the extent to which it is fiction. There need not be Kauravas and Pandavas; there need not be Kuntis and Draupadis; in fact, there is no question of even good versus evil; these all are just symbols to suggest the fact that the tact, strategy, planning and politics always wins over the biggest and the strongest of the armies. The very fact that Krishna, even without fighting in the war, was the single-most biggest reason for the outcome of the war suggests something which we have witnessed throughout the history of the world. When we today talk about diplomatic negotiations (and not armed wars) against our most bitter enemies, when we talk about talks with the maoists and the terrorists and abstain from military action, aren't we following in the footsteps of Krishna, where more than the strength it is the tact which plays a significant role? And it is what we miss when we talk about Mahabharta as a book of war; it is not; it is a book of peace, of love and, above all, of politics. And then what about the war? War fulfills several functions at several levels – a) wars were a norm in those days; so it lends credence to the whole story by acting as an accurate incident which happens all the time; b) it gives the poetry the required drama and thrill, thereby, fulfilling the basic criteria of any work of art i.e., it should entertain, c) and the most important of all it is a symbolic war fought within all of us to act in a certain way; none of the ways is perfect or good in all respects and so there is a fight or conflict to follow one way (the fight between Rama and Ravana in Ramayana is a similar war; and the ultimate renunciation of Rama by Sita goes on to show that there is no absolute good or absolute evil). And it is really sad that today, even without a basic reading and understanding of the original (even in the translated form) text, it is being labelled as anti-Dalit, casteist, Manuvadi and what not. It is being propagated as the holy text of Hindus and a text of the high-class Brahmins, which have no merits in it whatsoever. We probably forget that it questions and demolishes the whole caste system the moment Karna steps in the story. By birth he is not a low-caste chariot's son; but ultimately he becomes so. And again a chariot's son is made into a king. A complete upheaval and crumbling of the whole concept of caste and caste system. What about the story of Eklavya? A low caste child possessing skills far superior to the other high caste people! And what about Drona's behaviour with him? Doesn't it expose the cunning and ruthless way in which caste system is being maintained and perpetuated in the society? And what about the love affair of Hidimbi (a rakshasi) and Bhima (and the ultimate killing of Hidimba, who did not support this love affair)? The movie has done a wonderful job in understanding one half of the Mahabharta; the fact that there is no good, there is no evil. There is an evil part and a good part in all of us, which is indeed a big achievement considering the unrealistic, flat good (represented by one-dimensional thoroughly pious and good hero) vs. evil (represented by the laughing, treacherous, cruel one-dimensional villain) movies that we encounter everyday. But it falters in the final step. It fails to understand the war. It fails to understand that in 'rajneeti' the death should not necessarily mean DEATH; it is rather the political death (to which there is a passing reference in the movie). The war worked in Mahabharta because that was how the whole story was planned (and that was how the times were then). But it doesn't work in the modern context. A more nuanced and balanced climax would have brought the movie almost parallel to what Mahabharta has achieved and managed to do. P.S.- Just a funny but significant aspect of the movie is Ranbir Kapoor's character. It should be noted that he is not an engineer or IAS or for that matter an MBA; rather he is a PhD scholar and that too in English literature. For all my friends in JNU doing PhD, this means that a PhD scholar is not a good-for-nothing chap but actually a brilliant mind capable of overtaking and defeating the masters of such wily games as Rajneeti. Just a postscript!