Illustration: Mehrul Bari

Mrittika Anan Rahman (MAR): How have our shifting national identities, caused by the politics of the region from 1947 to 1971, shaped our perception of Indian films?  

Harisur Rahman (HR): Before the partition in 1947, Hindi films were not hegemonic in the Bangali-dominant area known as East Bengal. However, after the partition, first in 1948 and then in 1965, Hindi films were thought to be foreign-language films, and a ban was imposed in the cinema halls. The embargo remained even after the independence of Bangladesh on the grounds of nationalism and of saving the nascent film industry in Bangladesh.

Because of shifting political identities, the East Bengali and later-Bangladeshi audience's relationship with Hindi films changed. In the first decade of independence, Bangladeshi audiences had no other options but to watch Bangladeshi films. However, from the 1980s onwards, the advent of VCR, dish antenna, and then the internet reorganised the relationship between Bangladeshi viewers and Hindi films, and reinforced Indian cultural and linguistic hegemony across Bangladesh.

The cultural ban on Hindi films in Bangladeshi cinema halls could not erase the fond memory of the many East Bengali and East Pakistani audiences who watched Hindi films in different cinema halls in Old Dhaka during the 1940s and 1950s. In independent Bangladesh, with the advent of the small screen such as TV, computer, and laptop, many audiences have taken the hegemony of Hindi films for granted. Interestingly, the public sphere, such as cinema halls, is still a contentious zone where most Bangladeshi audiences do not want to see Hindi films on the grounds of nationalism and patriotism. They feel Bangladeshi films will be completely wiped out if Hindi films are allowed in local cinema halls.

MAR: Your book outlines how the ghettoisation of Bangladeshi films and theatres has held a lower-class audience captive while driving middle-class audiences out of theatres. Are we, then, a people in search of representation? Is this why we gravitate to Bollywood?

HR: The problem here is with Bangladeshi film producers, who hardly try to understand the pulse of their audiences. They rarely offer an original story; instead, they copy foreign films such as those made in Hindi and Tamil. Because of the lack of research on film audiences, most Bangladeshi films fail to satisfy their target audiences. Even their understanding of small screen audiences, especially in the early cable TV or CD/DVD era, was near to nil. In the 1990s, the insertion of "cut-pieces" in films failed to draw in the targeted lower class audiences because they had far better options on cable TV and DVDs. As a result, they did not feel the urge to visit cinema halls. For middle-class audiences, the alienation with Bangladeshi commercial films had settled in even earlier, spurred on by the lack of gentrification of Bangladeshi cinema.

MAR: In your book, you elaborate on how medieval Persian-Arabian folk forms and oriental fantasies in stories such as Mughal-E-Azam, Umrao Jaan, or Laila Majnu have been adopted by Bollywood. What does it say about Bollywood that it became mediators of so many of the region's surrounding cultures? 

Rekha in Umrao Jaan (1981).

HR: The word "Bollywood" came to the fore in the 1990s with the increase of non-resident Indian films. Most Hindi films featured the NRI's life, love, and romances, in which India's landscapes were missing. Meanwhile, the linguistic identity of the "Hindi film" is as old as the sound film which began in the 1930s. The terms, however, are being used interchangeably nowadays.

With the advent of sound, regional film industries started producing films in their respective regional languages. As I mention in my book, Hindi films have a larger audience than Bangla or Tamil films because of Hindi's larger linguistic area. The adaptation of "Islamicate" culture (as coined by historian Marshal Hodgson in 1974 in his Venture of Islam)—not the practice of Islam as a religion but the socio-cultural traditions historically connected with Muslims—such as Arabian Nights, Medieval Persian-Arabin folk forms, Urdu ghazals and qawwali, and the lifestyles of Mughals and Nawabs, created a cross-over appeal for Hindi films across India. Hindi filmmakers used Islamicate culture in their films to appeal to Muslim audiences.

In addition, as Indian film scholar Ashish Rajadhyaksha has mentioned, successive Indian governments have metonymized Bollywood since the 1990s to represent 'Indianness' worldwide. With the advent of neo-liberalisation in the Indian subcontinent in the 1990s, privatisation created the middle class across South Asia, including in Bangladesh. The hegemony of Bollywood films captured the imagination of this middle class, who responded by subscribing to those films and the cultures they mediated. 

MAR: Words like ishq, izzat, insaaf, jazbaat or dil, among others, have become significant themes in Bollywood films, even though they have been adopted from "Urdu's Persian and Arabic-derived vocabulary". In a subcontinent where language plays such a political role, does Bollywood act as a cultural unifier?

HR: For the middle-class, as French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu has said, the dearth of economic capital is compensated by cultural capital such as norms, values, emotion, honours, or education. The commonality of cultural unifiers works for the middle class in the subcontinent and remote Nigeria's Hausa people, where Hindi films were much liked because of similar social norms, values, and the sense of modernity which anthropologist Brian Larkin referred to as "parallel modernity". This phenomenon is exceptionally instructive and helps to explain why audiences in postcolonial societies are not perpetual and direct consumers of Western hegemonic modernity. Instead, a postcolonial society can consume films produced in another postcolonial society.

The release of Gunday (2014) generated backlash from Bangladeshi audiences. Photo: YASH RAJ FILMS

MAR: Bollywood has often portrayed Bangladesh or Bangladeshi people in negative terms. Why has this never curbed our appetite for their content?

HR: The audience in a hegemonised culture might love the hegemonic culture and way of life, despite knowing the fact that the producers of the latter might hate them. The reason is that a hegemonised audience or consumer tends to think that by subscribing to or consuming "superior" products, they can enhance their status in society. Cultural hegemony works in a complex way in different layers of the society, such as at the global, regional, and local levels. At the local level, for instance, there is the tendency among Bangladesh's urban middle-class youths of knowing the names of US cities; it is a matter of pride for them, but do they feel any urge to know the whereabouts of the marginalised ethnic communities such as Chakma or Tipra in Bangladesh? Instead, it is the ethnic community that becomes hegemonised by the dominant Bangali culture, so much so that they try to learn Bangla to get better jobs.

MAR: What role will streaming platforms play in Bangladesh's film industry and how does Indian content impact our consumption of Bangladeshi content online?

HR: The consumers of the entertainment industry in the 21st century prioritise flexibility in terms of time and choice. This demand is aptly translated by streaming platforms, as viewers can access their choice of films, television series, and reality shows at their preferred time. They also have the opportunity to watch foreign entertainment programmes with voice-overs or subtitles. No doubt, COVID-19 has been a watershed moment in keeping most people around the world gated at home; thus, like all other businesses, films have also gone online. International streaming sites such as Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu, Hotstar, SonyLIV, ALT Balaji, Ullu, and Zee5 have reached every nook and cranny in Bangladesh and consolidated western and regional cultural hegemony in Bangladesh. In addition, ISP-based FTP servers and locally operated pirated streaming sites which host thousands of foreign films, including Hollywood and Bollywood films, reinforce foreign hegemony in Bangladesh, pushing the Bangladeshi films and film industry to the limit.

MAR: Bangladesh has declared that Bollywood films will be exhibited in local theatres despite protests from local filmmakers and civil society members. Have we lost a fight against cultural hegemony?

"The fact remains that single-screen cinema halls are dying." Photo: KAZI TAHSIN AGAZ APURBO

HR: The Bangladeshi film industry has been in a state of emergency for the last couple of years. The pandemic has been the final nail in the coffin. During the launching of my book in late 2020, Bangladeshi film scholars and filmmakers participated in a webinar. Most of the participants agreed with the proposition that we can allow Hindi films in Bangladeshi cinema halls in a limited capacity. According to the discussants, the Bangladeshi film industry's current state results from protectionism and corruption within many channels of distribution and production. Moreover, they blamed Bangladeshi filmmakers' tendency to copy stories and filmmaking strategies from Hindi films.

Nevertheless, they were hopeful that we could revive the situation if we followed specific strategies and made long-term plans. Among other things, they demanded independent film commissions and governmental support for film production. Industry specialists asked for digitalisation of the ticket selling process. At the same time, they asked to utilise existing public spaces such as the district Shilpakala Academy as a film exhibition centre. Film scholars were asked to focus on the content of the films and on nurturing new talent. They also asked to consider the vernacularisation of the film industry to create a new audience. Overall, everyone thought that Bangladesh has the potential to compete with other film industries, and opening our market for Hindi films would not be as big of a threat as it may seem.

MAR: Exhibitors argue that competition from foreign films will revive local cinema, while filmmakers argue that they cannot feasibly compete with big-budget Bollywood films. What do you believe will be the impact on the local industry, once the screening of Bollywood films begins?

HR: Cultural hegemony cannot be curbed by banning Hindi films, people can always find a way to access them. The fact remains that single-screen cinema halls are dying, and the impact of COVID-19 has made the condition even worse. Nowadays, middle-class audiences are habituated with foreign OTT platforms where Bangladeshi films are absent.

Bangladeshi content is absent from popular OTT platforms. PHOTO: MEHRUL BARI

Most Bangladeshi middle-class audiences do not visit single-screen cinema halls because they are socially despised and thought to be suitable for the lower classes, but if Hindi films are shown, this might draw in more crowds. Once the audiences become habituated with the cinema-going culture, they might watch Bangladeshi films out of curiosity, patriotism, or just for fun. The film industries in Pakistan or Nepal have not been wiped out because of access to Hindi films in cinema halls. Instead, many good films have come out of the competition in those industries.

For Bangladesh to create a counter-hegemony over Hindi films, it has to be technologically and financially competitive, which is still not in sight. So what could be done to tackle a Goliath that is our next-door neighbour?

There is no easy way to tackle it, but Bangladeshi filmmakers need to produce original stories, which will in no way be a copy of Indian films in technique, style, or aesthetics. Bangladeshi filmmakers should focus on vernacular language or niche, culture-based storylines, appealing to the local audience. A filmmaker should understand their target audiences by researching the preproduction, production, and postproduction stages of a film. If not multiplexes, build at least double screen cinema halls in each upazila to allow Hindi films on one screen and local films on another. Introduce film studies in the national educational curriculum from the secondary to the tertiary levels, so that creative people can join the industry.

Mrittika Anan Rahman is sub- editor, SHOUT, and a contributor to Daily Star Books.

For more book-related news and views, follow Daily Star Books on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn pages.