Sarfarosh: How To Make A Movie About Terrorism Without Being Islamophobic

Peter Benchley wrote Jaws. It was about a shark attacking people of a town. Spielberg adapted it into a blockbuster movie. The movie is credited with triggering many shark hunts and pushing the creature to the brink of extinction. It gained notoriety as the ‘Jaws’ effect. Benchley now regrets that portrayal and advocates marine life conservation.

Believe it or not, the same happens with the Indian movies that feature terrorists. Pick any movie which has a terrorist as a villain, especially the Telugu ones. Almost always, the terrorists will be kohl-eyed brutes who scream ‘Insha Allah’ every 5 minutes. Like with sharks in Jaws, you leave with the impression every Muslim is a monster.

You may say, “But shark attacks do occur?”; There are Muslims who commit terrorist attacks; Should we not make movies about them? Do movies have to be politically correct? It’s not a documentary, it’s meant for entertainment.

True. You’re free. You don’t have to be politically correct, especially if you don’t want to be (plus, why would you take writing advice from an unknown). Still, allow me to show you a movie that covers an uncomfortable minority issue while being sensitive and still is entertaining and commercially viable — Sarfarosh. In this article, I reflect on how they did it:

1. Multiple Fully Formed Muslim Characters

Sarfarosh creates multiple kinds of people involved in terrorist acts.This breaks the notion that there’s only one kind of stereotypical Muslim and gives space for nuance. Just look at the different motives he has come up with:

Sultan: He’s on the bottom tier. He’s the retailer of the arms. He’s not that bright. Interested mostly in women, bragging, booze, and money. Interestingly, they’ve dropped his backstory in one line. He’s in the trade for drugs, but the ISI refuses to sell drugs unless he also buys arms.

Haji Seth: He’s slightly up the hierarchy. He’s in it for money, but he mostly deals by negotiating — bribes, communal appeals, etc.,

Gulfam Hassan: He’s a musician, a former royal, who harbors extreme hatred since the partition. He wants to avenge injustice He goes to Pakistan but is also discriminated against there because he’s an immigrant, a Mohajir. At the same time, he forms a friendship with the hero. Battles a dilemma whether to remove an obstacle out of his path or to save a friend.

Major Baig: He’s an intelligence officer who’s sent to India as a poet to put pressure on Gulfam Hassan to do the job.

Shafi: He’s the muscle and the only kohl-eyed brute there is. He takes care of the logistics side of the operations.

ISI General: He is the one who plans the proxy war and is the least developed character. He spells out his plan explicitly. I wonder if this character would’ve had a better arc if it this movie were a series.

2. Muslim Characters Apart From Perpetrators

It’s not that usual terrorist movies don’t have Muslims on the law-abiding side. It’s just that they are token Muslims. As in, they’re there just to pay a lip service that ‘Good Muslims’ exist, but the movie doesn’t really care about them. They never give the Muslim character a complete arc. You barely know them, their pains, their ambitions or how they’re coping up with it all. Let’s look at how Sarfarosh deals with it:

Saleem: If it weren’t for this character, this movie would have been the Muslim version of ‘Jaws’. He is the portrayal of the consequences of terrorist attacks on Muslims.

He’s shown as a common person. He is an exceptionally Competent officer. Yet faces workplace discrimination. It’s clearly illustrated by the price of failures he has to pay. When he fails to catch a criminal, he’s removed from the case. Whereas when a criminal dies in the hero’s custody, he doesn’t even get a reprimand. The movie was brave enough to show not only is the hero, not an omnipotent God, he is not as competent as Saleem. Not just that, hero has to overcome his own prejudices, which surfaces when Saleem refuses to work on the case and hero brings up Saleem’s religious background to counter it.

Sultan’s Mother: A frail old lady who has to bear the consequences of Sultan’s action. Including harsh treatment from the police.

3. Perpetrators Apart From Muslims

This is another way movies simplify the issues. They make it seem as if this one stereotypical brute is defeated, there would be no danger at all. Showing the people with different motives here too illustrates how complex the issue is and how the solution too will have to respect these intricacies.

1. Veeran: He’s the tribal leader who murders civilians for money and his cause.

2. Rajan: He’s an underworld Don who wants to buy advanced weapons to gain the edge.

3. Bala Thakur: He’s the distributor for the arms into internal areas.

4. Mirchi Seth: He’s the smuggler who’s interested in the money.

5. Shiva: He’s the retailer/problem solver who works with Sultan.

BONUS TRIVIA: THE ADDITION OF POLICE BRUTALITY

One aspect that hasn’t aged well is the movie’s position on torture. The hero is shown to be completely fine with extra-judicial methods like extracting information at gunpoint.

Aamir Khan said in an interview that they weren’t part of the movie earlier. The focus group screenings had one consistent feedback that the hero didn’t feel like he was doing the police work. To accommodate for that, they added three scenes:
1. Coercing information from Nawazuddin Siddiqui through torture.
2. The humiliating capture of the corrupt policeman working for Bala Thakur
3. Harsh interrogation of 60-year-old Sultan’s mum.

After those changes, the feedback that the hero wasn’t police enough subsided. There’s no justification here, just an insight on how we can’t seem to consider our police to be police without them torturing someone.

Conclusion:

Of course, had the script not been tight with constant twists and turns it would all have been in vain. Still, you can see how intricate the stories can be without compromising the entertainment factor. If you can be sensitive and commercial when making a movie, and yet you choose to not be, would it be surprising if the history judged you harshly?