Pathaan's Politics Instils Hope, But Isn't the Answer to India's Hate Machine

There are plenty of messages in Pathaan that make the SRK-starrer a political film. We analyse what they mean.

This article contains spoilers.  

Battling boycott calls and organised hate campaigns, Shah Rukh Khan's Pathaan released under much scrutiny on 25 January. A full masala entertainer, the film – packed with action, drama, and catchy tunes – has received plenty of love from Shah Rukh Khan fans.

But many, who don't call themselves SRK fans or even like masala action films, have watched it simply as a political act – a political act opposing the hate perpetuated against a Muslim actor.  

Now that Pathaan has proved to be a blockbuster, defeating hate campaigns, it is now time to analyse the film for its political messaging.   

A Maulana, a Madrassa, and Pathaan  

"Wo ghalat Salahuddin Hussaini tha, ek madrase mein padhane wala maulana (He was the wrong Salahuddin Hussaini, a cleric teaching at a madrassa)," Shah Rukh Khan's character says in Pathaan as he goes on to save the madrassa, the maulana, and innocent kids studying in the religious school.

At a time when films – and the majoritarian society at large – constantly demonises maulanas and madrassas as those promoting extremism, Shah Rukh's defence comes as a welcome change.  

The Good and the Bad of Both Sides 

The film borrows the trope of Pakistan's ISI planning attacks on India and spins its plot from there. There's hardly anything surprising about that. However, the film takes an unpopular route and does not generalise an agency like the ISI, which in fact, as an institution, has a real history of supporting terror activities in India through its clandestine missions. 

Pathaan attempts to sort extremists from those doing the job of keeping their country safe.  

If the ISI in Pathaan has a person like General Qadir, who is willing to go to any length to hurt India, it also has Rubina (played by Deepika Padukone), who is ready to sacrifice her life and career to stop him.  

The same goes for the Indian side. Jim, played by John Abraham, is a former Indian spy who has gone rogue. A recipient of a gallantry award, Jim is looking for revenge against his country of birth for abandoning him in his hour of need. But he must go through Pathaan, who does what his country needs, no questions asked.  

While Pathaan does take the risk of angering the majoritarian mob who might be upset with how ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) and the RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) are portrayed, it supports the liberal banality that there are good and bad on both sides.

The Muslim Identity  

The problem with 'not all is good, not all is bad' cliche is that it also promotes certain stereotypes. There are plenty of good-intentioned films that try to tread the "good Muslim vs bad Muslim" portrayal – a deshbhakt Muslim fighting against a Muslim terrorist, both invoking their religion, is a plot we have seen too often.  

Pathaan steers clear of this debate. It neither ascribes religion to its protagonist, nor its antagonist.  

While Shah Rukh's Pathaan does not have a religion – he does not have a Muslim-sounding first name nor does he chant any religious text – his identity is that of a Muslim. His code name is Pathaan, an explicitly Muslim surname, given to him by Muslim villagers in Afghanistan. The character's name and the film's title seem to be a conscious effort to give an identity to the protagonist, who may not look like a stereotypical Muslim but carries the identity.

The Afghanistan Question 

The most refreshing part of the film comes from Afghanistan – a land ravaged by decades of conflict. It is here that Pathaan saves a madrassa from a US missile, it is here he gets his identity, and it is the people of Afghanistan who help him defeat the antagonist. Pathaan shows that Afghanistan is a land of love, caught in a cycle of violence perpetuated by external forces.  

The two scenes depicting Afghanistan have subtle political undertones. One – innocent civilians caught in the US firing line; and two – external forces using the land to launch an attack on a third country.   

As Pathaan saves the madrassa and maulana, he goes one step further in deviating from the popular narrative. It does not conform to the stereotypes and projects the maulana and his pupils as innocent civilians caught in a conflict.  

Article 370  

While Pathaan gets a few things right, it misses its political mark when it comes to Kashmir. The abrogation of Article 370 forms the plot base of Pathaan. To its credit, the film does not indulge in over-the-top jingoism to champion the government narrative. It does, however, toe the official storyline of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that the reading down of Article 370 upset terrorists.  

In the popular Pakistan vs India debate on Article 370, you have to be either for it or against it – there is no scope for playing both sides.

The majoritarian right-wing narrative on Article 370 from the beginning has been that those against its abrogation are taking the side of Pakistan. Pathaan carries forward that narrative and clubs the scores of Kashmiris, many of whom were put under detention, with Pakistanis who, angered by the move, launched a mission to avenge it.  

Politics, the Shah Rukh Khan Way 

French artist Daniel Buren believes that everything an artist does is political. "Every act is political and, whether one is conscious of it or not, the presentation of one's work is no exception," he says.  

Shah Rukh Khan is no exception to this theory. He may not wear his politics on his sleeve but everything he does, or doesn't, is political.

Shah Rukh's position on Kashmir is not publicly known, but he has also not deviated from the mainstream narrative – espoused by most Muslims in mainland India – that Kashmir is an integral part of the country and all problems there are products of Pakistan's nefarious designs. 

While Shah Rukh deserves the credit for not buckling under pressure to parrot the ongoing jingoistic nationalism, Pathaan is hardly the answer to India's majoritarian hate narrative.