Introduction

‘Satyagraha: The Revolution Has Begun!’ (2013) scripts the race for leadership in anti-corruption politics between telecom tycoon Manav Raghvendra and Good Samaritan Arjun Singh. Manav is a successful technocrat and Arjun is an emerging leader. But it is not local ‘dada’ (boss) Arjun who leads the semi-urban commons of Ambikapur against the corrupt government. Global-urban Manav, whose visit to the district of Ambikapur from New Delhi was merely incidental, rises as the leader. Arjun sacrifices his opportunity without much grumble. In fact, a series of events and retired headmaster Dwarka Anand’s moral strategies propel Manav as a hero and saviour. Arjun too accepts the parachuted leader. The narrative seeks to legitimise what is otherwise an embarrassing repeat of the denial motif in the Dronacharya–Arjun–Eklavya episode of the Mahabharata.Footnote 1 Film techniques — background score, casting, costume design, credits, editing, framing, music, plot design and shot composition — are cleverly deployed to achieve the hegemonic mise-en-scène.

In the context of spatial politics, ‘Satyagraha’ nudges the town populations of Bharat to accept the leadership of metropolitan India and thus that of the global order. There is an almost documentary similarity between this Bollywood production and the India Against Corruption (IAC) Movement of 2011. It makes ‘Satyagraha’ a useful artefact to examine the political ambitions of social groups engaged in anti-corruption politics not only on screen but also off it.

Representation of anti-corruption politics in Bollywood

Corruption is an important theme in Bollywood. It has long been projected as that grand challenge against which the hero must succeed and establish himself on screen and off it. Since corruption is a common experience in India, the fight against it has resonated with the audience. At the same time, such endeavour has depicted the male protagonist either as an activist or as a vigilante. Each is a route to emerge as the hero. Several films fit these narratives but an exhaustive list is neither essential for this essay nor is it possible. Rise of the “angry young man” motif against corruption in the 1970s, alongside the Navnirman Movement, led to films like ‘Zanjeer’ (1973) and ‘Don’ (1978).Footnote 2 Sunny Deol followed the same style and theme popularised by Amitabh Bachchan. ‘Arjun’ (1985) and ‘Ghayal’ (1989) contributed to his stardom. Though not popular yet ‘Aakrosh’ (1980) and ‘Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron’ (1983) are classics of that decade which underline the problem of corruption and its impact on individuals. ‘Baazi’ (1995) follows a police officer and ‘Indian’ (1996) shows a senior citizen engaged in their efforts to dismantle systems plagued by corruption. With the turn of the century, the activist and the vigilante continued as protagonists in Bollywood. Mention must be made of ‘Nayak: The Real Hero’ (2002) and ‘Gangajal’ (2003) in this regard. ‘Khosla ka Ghosla’ (2006), Johny Gaddar (2007), ‘Well Done Abba’ (2009) and ‘Peepli Live’ (2010) portray corruption with a neo-realist touch during this decade. In the following one, ‘Jolly LLB’ (2013) and ‘Jolly LLB 2 (2017) depict the struggle of ordinary individuals against corruption in a comic manner. ‘Satyagraha’ has thus added to a proven theme in Bollywood.

But what makes the film unique is that it closely reflects the manner in which the IAC Movement unfolded. ‘Satyagraha’ is thus not a film about individuals who fight against corruption as in the ones mentioned above. It portrays a collective struggle in which everyday citizens actively support their leaders. The crowd in ‘Satyagraha’ is not an onlooker. It is a gathering within which the protagonists circulate and with whom they engage constantly.

‘Not an Insignificant Man’ (2018) is a documentary film that tracks the formation of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the transformation of Arvind Kejriwal from a leader of the IAC Movement to the chief minister of New Delhi. Towards the beginning of the film, he is followed into a movie theatre where he is seen to enjoy ‘Satyagraha’ with his colleagues. Among others, Kejriwal is flanked by his trusted aide Manish Sisodia. An interview takes place in the next scene:

Interviewer: Arvind Kejriwalji pehle to film kaisi lagi aur uss ‘Satyagraha’ aur iss satyagraha mein kya fark hai?

(Mr. Kejriwal how was the film? What is the difference between the ‘Satyagraha’ on screen and the one that you participated in?)

Kejriwal: Yeh film ant mein usi natije pe pohnchi hai jis natije pe uss andolan ke bahut sare log pohnche hai.

(In the end, this film arrives at the same conclusion that many participants in the protests have.)

Interviewer: Aapki chuni hui raha ko chunki yeh film sahi thehrata isliye lag raha hai aapko ki sahi hai?

(Do you think your path is justified because the film celebrates it?)

Kejriwal: Aapko kuch aur lagta hai?

(Do you think otherwise?)

The “path” refers to Kejriwal’s decision to form the (AAP) and fight the assembly elections in New Delhi. The decision was in stark contrast to what had been resolved at the very start of the IAC Movement. It had been agreed upon that participants would stay away from the electoral arena. The reversal created a rift in the IAC Movement and led to a permanent split between Kejriwal and his mentor Kisan Hazare. The latter remains a votary of public engagement that is bereft of the pursuit of state power.

‘Satyagraha’ however glosses over this disagreement and welcomes the decision to contest elections in Ambikapur.

Research methodology

A qualitative methodology based on cinematic exploration and textual enquiry is useful to study the portrayal of anti-corruption politics in ‘Satyagraha’. A scene-by-scene examination and a close reading of the dialogue transcript reveal the power dynamics among the characters which in turn underline that between social groups represented by the dramatis personae. This essay attempts to perform an ideological analysis of the audio-visual outcome of the many elements that make ‘Satyagraha’.

Particular emphasis is laid on the critical assessment of shot composition that constructs Manav as the global-urban hero and Dwarka as the moral authority in pro-filmic Ambikapur. The same is placed on dialogue evaluation to uncover patterns that justify the position of Arjun as the semi-urban common in the lower rungs of the leadership hierarchy.

IAC Movement and ‘Satyagraha’

The social composition of the IAC Movement is a matter of much debate which has divided scholars. It is snubbed as manufactured dissent for the blanket coverage that it received from the news media (Muralidharan, 2011; Rajagopal, 2011). In analyses of Marxists, producers of such media are the traditional intelligentsia, i.e. makers of the cultural capital that legitimise the power of privileged groups over others. But as numerical minorities, privileged groups face stiff challenges from numerical majorities in the electoral arena. This has been a steady trend in the politics of India since the last quarter of the 20th century due to various social churns (Menon and Nigam, 2007, pp. 15–35). Appointment and not election to the Jan Lokpal, with legislative, judicial and even executive powers, would have helped the privileged groups bypass the electoral process and institute ombudsmen from their own (Bharadwaj, 2011). The criteria for appointment were based on cultural capital and the higher judiciary was expected to play a key role in the process. The logic of affirmative action in India is to redistribute cultural capital which circulates unequally among the different identities that make India. It does not apply to the higher judiciary. The privileged groups thus hoped to regain their slipping hold over power with this extra-electoral strategy.

Such cynicism about the IAC Movement is not uncontested however. It is naïve to argue that the agitation was attended by metropolitan elites only as individuals cut across classes and occupations to throng the protests (Menon and Nigam, 2011). Yet most leaders of the IAC Movement were indeed members of the elite with most decision-makers being urban residents employed in the service sector. The campaign received huge support from the diaspora as well (NDTV, 2011). This hierarchy of global-urban leaders and semi-urban followers is crafted stealthily in ‘Satyagraha’. That it boasts of ‘The Revolution Has Begun!’ in the secondary title is odd.

The IAC Movement occurred in New Delhi over two phases in April 2011 and August 2011.Footnote 3 A follower of Gandhi, Hazare popularly known as “Anna” (elder brother), emerged as the septuagenarian symbol of it. Besides the main players, events in ‘Satyagraha’ exhibit a palpable similarity with those in the IAC Movement. The depiction of corporate lobbying is a reference to the 2G scam which triggered the anti-corruption politics of 2011 (Ray, 2017). Detention and subsequent campaign to free Dwarka reflect the arrest and release fiasco of Hazare in New Delhi. The portrayal of public mobilisation via social media and embedded journalism is also a rerun of the action that took place in the IAC Movement. The constant emphasis on non-violence in the film is a replay of what was the mainstay of the peaceful agitation in New Delhi and elsewhere in India.Footnote 4

Directed by Prakash Jha and released in 2013, ‘Satyagraha’ stars Amitabh Bachchan as Dwarka, Ajay Devgn as Manav, Arjun Rampal as Arjun, Amrita Rao as Sumitra, Kareena Kapoor as Yasmin and Manoj Kolhatkar as Indrajeet. The central characters in the film represent the main personalities in the IAC Movement. Dwarka Anand, also called “Dadu” (grandfather), is inspired by Hazare. Manav Raghavendra depicts Kejriwal. Indrajeet is a sketch of lawyer Prashant Bhushan and Yasmin Ahmed reminds of journalist Shazia Ilmi. Other characters in ‘Satyagraha’ include Manoj Bajpayi as corrupt minister Balram Singh and Indraneil Sengupta as Dwarka’s son Akhilesh.

The IAC Movement and ‘Satyagraha’ revolve around political patriarchs like Hazare and Dwarka who advocate bloodless opposition. They employ another form of non-violence that Gandhi had popularised — fast as a response to unjust authority. Hazare took to it during the IAC Movement and Dwarka’s voluntary rejection of food in ‘Satyagraha’ serves as a compelling symbol of self-sacrifice for the collective good. News coverage and the beginnings of social media are crucial in both the IAC Movement and ‘Satyagraha’. The film depicts popular mobilisation via satellite television and digital platforms as it was in the IAC Movement. The reel also registers the active involvement of the youth. Young characters like Manav, Arjun, Yasmin, Sumitra and countless youths represent a demography that participated in the real events of 2011.

Besides the above similarities, there are important differences between the IAC Movement and ‘Satyagraha’. For instance, the film personalises motivations. The murder of Akhilesh severely affects his father, friend and wife and hurls all of them into anti-corruption politics. The personal tragedy adds emotional weight to the narrative. However, the IAC Movement was spurred by collective opposition against politicians and bureaucrats and by the leadership of Hazare and Kejriwal. In addition, ‘Satyagraha’ does not explore the difficulties of factionalism within the IAC Movement. Differences between Hazare and Kejriwal eventually led to splits as the latter went on to form the AAP and contest elections. ‘Satyagraha’ resolves these quarrelsome dynamics between Dwarka and Manav and presents a mostly unified protest.

The plot

‘Satyagraha’ begins with Manav’s arrival in tropical Ambikapur — a node in the semi-urban networks of north India. He comes to meet his fraternal friend Akhilesh. Both are educated professionals. Manav aspires to be a business magnate but his comrade dreams of ushering development in Ambikapur. Akhilesh is the son of Dwarka who runs a school for underprivileged children. The film introduces the former school principal as a strident voice against corruption. Dwarka refuses to pay inflated bills to a private firm in his very first scene. Manav and Dwarka share an uncomfortable relationship. Manav is even forced to leave Ambikapur after Dwarka catches him and Akhilesh in their secret session of alcohol.

About three years later, a flyover designed by Akhilesh collapss in Ambikapur and kills eight workers. Akhilesh rushes to the spot to find that the building material is spurious and is run over by a truck on his way back. Much later, it is discovered that this was not an accident but a murder. Akhilesh was killed by the brother of Balram whose firm was in charge of the flyover construction. Devastated Manav, by now telecom mogul, returns to Ambikapur. Here he finds an inconsolable Sumitra and an aggrieved but stoic Dwarka. Balram lavishes praise on Akhilesh and announces an ex-gratia of 25 lakh rupees at his cremation.

Sumitra decides to donate the money for the construction of a school to commemorate her deceased husband. But trouble begins when she refuses to pay a bribe and the bureaucracy delays the release of the sum. Dwarka is frustrated at the plight of his daughter-in-law. He barges into the office of the district magistrate and slaps him during a heated altercation.Footnote 5 Dwarka is promptly arrested but he refuses to apologise. Manav returns to Ambikapur again and launches a public campaign to secure Dwarka’s release. He is supported by youth leader Arjun, journalist Yasmin, lawyer Indrajeet and Sumitra. Balram orders the release of Dwarka and hurries to a rally to hand over the ex-gratia after popular pressure. But Dwarka, affectionately called ‘Dadu’ (grandfather) by his followers now, refuses it.Footnote 6 In fact, he gives an ultimatum of thirty days to the government to clear all public dues.

A dramatic stand-off follows between a violent government and a ‘jan satyagraha’ (non-violent agitation by masses) — the exact form of protest in the IAC Movement. Dwarka goes on an indefinite hunger strike to force the will of the people on the government just like Hazare did. But in a departure from the IAC Movement, the symbol against corruption is killed by the henchmen of Balram. A mob led by Arjun is about to lynch Balram when Manav stops them and reminds them of the ideal of non-violence espoused by Dwarka.

Social struggle for leadership

A technocrat, Manav is also a captain of the telecom industry. On the other hand, Arjun is a school dropout. Arjun is now the local boss who drives around Ambikapur with a faithful squad and is given to social work. He is committed to the welfare of the people and has gained popularity. Arjun nurtures the dream to be elected to the legislature. But he accepts Manav as the leader of the ‘jan satyagraha’ after initial resistance. The change of mind is confirmed by the following dialogue:

Yasmin: Mr. Arjun, ab kya plan hai aap logon ka?

(Mr. Arjun, what is your plan now?)

Arjun: Manav ka brain aur humari takat … band baja denge salon ki.

(Manav’s intelligence and my strength … we will defeat the ‘sala’s.)Footnote 7

The division of labour that the dialogue performs is noteworthy. Global-urban Manav is assigned intellectual labour while semi-urban Arjun is allotted physical labour. Intellectual labour scores more than physical labour as economic capital or cultural capital. Such apportion is thus not casual. Cinematic techniques are cleverly used to underline the brain-brawn divide. In fact, they imply beyond it and advance the global-urban hero in the race for leadership in Ambikapur. The semi-urban associate is made to remain a sidekick via procedures of commission and omission on screen. In the opening sequence, Manav and Akhilesh make fun of the 17-hour rail journey to Ambikapur and of the drive on the bumpy roads of it. These cause bodily discomfort to Manav and the educated professional is not used to it. On the other hand, an indexical piece in costume design — ‘gamcha’ (light, cheap towel to dry sweat) — is constant around Arjun’s neck. It indicates his acquaintance with physical labour and with the heat and dust of tropical India.

In terms of screen presence too, Manav supersedes Arjun. There is no frame that has only Arjun. But exclusive frames are dedicated to Manav and Dwarka. Even lesser characters like Akhilesh and Sumitra get their share of total presence on screen. In the music department, it is Manav again who gets to serenade Yasmin with ‘Raske Bhare Tere Nain’ (Your Nectar-Filled Eyes). No other song in the two hours and thirty-five minutes film is intimate despite the possibility to insert it in the life of the other couple — Akhilesh–Sumitra.Footnote 8 The trademark low-angle shot to establish the authority figure is used in the penultimate scene too. It heralds Manav as the hero and therefore leader.

But it is Dwarka’s dramatic endorsement that makes him the unanimous leader of anti-corruption politics in Ambikapur. Besides being a telecom mogul, Manav is also a corporate fixer. He dissolves his corporation and ensures payment to all his shareholders as soon as Balram tries to discredit him. Manav defends himself thus:

Crowd: Fraud hai! Garib public ka nuksan kiya hai!

(He is a fraud! The poor public has lost money because of him!)

Manav: Kya fraud kiya hai? Kiska nuksan hua hai yahan? … Aap sabke samne kubul karna chahta hoon ki maine apne business ko badhane ke liye galat tarikon ka istemal kiya. Meri company jo ki paanch hazar crore ki nahin darasal char hazar saatso tera crore ki thi woh sab maine apne bank, apne karamchari aur apne shareholders ko munafe ke sath baant diya hai. Ek paise ka nuksan nahin hua hai kisi ka.

(What fraud have I committed? Who has lost money here? … I admit to you all that I employed wrong means to expand my business. My company was not worth five thousand crore but six thousand seven hundred and thirteen crores. I have distributed that amount among banks, my employees and to my shareholders with profit. Nobody has lost even a paisa).

The scene unfolds before Dwarka who stands guard at the door of his house to which Manav had access till recently. At the end of the confession, Dwarka decides to forgive Manav. He embraces him after hearing the passionate plea for innocence. The public takes the cue and does the same. This is the second instance of propping up the leader. The first was when, following release from prison, Dwarka embraced Manav as the fulfilment of the void left by his dead son. The second instance in the plot design consists of both episodes of “decisive victory” and “come[s] back” in what is known as the hero’s journey. Not only does Manav defeat a clever machination of Balram but he also returns to the moral fold via sacrifice of material wealth. So the hero is Manav who can even “bestow boons” of leadership on his followers. Joseph Campbell (2004) writes:

The standard path of the mythological adventure of the hero is a magnification of the formula represented in the rites of passage: separation–initiation–return … A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man (p. 28).

In fact, the appearance of text on screen — either as opening and closing credits or to convey intermission — coincides with each act in the three-act structure of the plot design (Campbell, 2004). Each of these instances has Manav as the central character on screen. Opening credits mark the first act i.e. the separation stage. They roll over an ‘item number’ which establishes Manav as the financially unscrupulous telecom magnate. The announcement of intermission marks the second act i.e. the initiation stage. The text appears on the frozen frame of a disturbed Manav who has just been exposed to Ambikapur by Balram. Closing credits mark the third act i.e. the return stage. They roll as Ambikapur returns to normal after a spate of violence over the killing of Dwarka. But the immediate shot before is that of Manav who discovers his reflection on a photograph of the deceased Dwarka. This signals Manav as the moral successor of Dwarka. The three-act structure is skilfully deployed to produce the hero of the film and the leader of Ambikapur.

The figure of Dwarka at the door is a recurring motif in the film. There are six such instances of defining import. They construct moral authority in pro-filmic Ambikapur. The first, a displeased Dwarka watches unnoticed from the entrance to the terrace as Manav and Akhilesh steal a few moments over alcohol (Fig. 1a, b). The second, a tearless but shaken Dwarka watches over his daughter-in-law from the door of her bedroom as Sumitra grieves the loss of her husband (Fig. 2a, b). He walks up to her bed, sits next to her and silently caresses her head. The third, a gentle gaze is repeated from the entrance to the terrace where a sorrowful Manav now remembers his last drink with Akhilesh (Fig. 3a, b). The fourth, Dwarka barges through the door into the office of the district magistrate and slaps him in the midst of a meeting (Fig. 4). The fifth, Dwarka denies help from Arjun when behind bars and reminds him that he has nothing to do with his former student who had gone astray (Fig. 5). The sixth, Dwarka stands guard at the door of his house and forbids entry to Manav before he has justified himself to the people of Ambikapur about his fixed deals (Fig. 6a, b).

Fig. 1: Watchful Guardian.
figure 1

a Dwarka stands at the archway to the terrace. b Dwarka confronts Manav and Akhilesh as they share a drink.

Full size image
Fig. 2: Grieving Father.
figure 2

a Dwarka watches over Sumitra from the doorway to her room. b Sumitra mourns her husband.

Full size image
Fig. 3: The Echoes of Loss.
figure 3

a Dwarka stands at the archway to the terrace after the death of Akhilesh. b Dwarka watches as Manav gazes at the terrace, haunted by his last drink with Akhilesh.

Full size image
Fig. 4: Strident Patriarch.
figure 4

Dwarka crosses the threshold and slaps the district magistrate mid-meeting.

Full size image
Fig. 5: Standing Firm.
figure 5

Behind bars, Dwarka rejects Arjun.

Full size image
Fig. 6: The Gatekeeper.
figure 6

a Dwarka guards the gate of his house. b Dwarka blocks Manav’s entry, demanding answers first.

Full size image

Each of these instances is an exhibition of facets congealed in the character of Dwarka — strictness, care, forgiveness, defiance, uprightness and judgement. They supply Dwarka with righteous ammunition which makes him the moral authority of Ambikapur. He is the “fabulous force[s]” that enables Manav to succeed in his hero’s journey. It also allows him to turn judge and pardon the hero for a crime that should be undoubtedly adjudicated by the state.

Besides the plot design, an array of cinematic techniques erects Dwarka as the moral guardian of Ambikapur. Shot composition elevates him to a height that is more than ordinary. In first, third and sixth instances mentioned above; long shots and physical space between Dwarka and his wards set him up as an all-seeing, panoptical figure who is disciplinary and benevolent. Sumitra and Arjun are so close to Dwarka in second and fifth instances that he becomes physically accessible to them. Yet he remains removed because he is silent in the former and prison grills separate him in the latter. Rousing background score underlines the extraordinariness that Dwarka executes via non-compliance with the door that separates the bureaucrat from the public. A defiant slap follows and concludes instance four. Casting Amitabh Bachchan contributes to achieve the character of Dwarka. Known as Big B, Bachchan has mastered the role of the respected patriarch in his veteran years.

Like Hazare, Dwarka is instituted as the transcendental figure in ‘Satyagraha’. His footsteps on the physical space of Ambikapur chart the moral cartography of that land. His constant appearance at the door transplants its function on Dwarka’s body. He is the point of entry and exit who must be negotiated in order to be part of Ambikapur or be ousted from it. No act of Dwarka can be challenged not only by the people of Ambikapur but also by the viewing public. He thus wields what Max Weber (1978) has called charismatic authority:

… it is recognition on the part of those subject to authority which is decisive for the validity of charisma … it is the duty of those subject to charismatic authority to recognise its genuineness and to act accordingly. Psychologically this recognition is a matter of complete personal devotion to the possessor of the quality, arising out of enthusiasm, or of despair and hope. (p. 242)

But it is not necessary that the source of authority be singular. The charismatic authority of Dwarka is complemented by the weight of age or seniority. Weber (1978) writes:

Gerontocracy and patriarchalism are frequently found side by side. The decisive characteristic of both is the belief of the members that domination, even though it is an inherent traditional right of the master, must definitely be exercised as a joint right in the interest of all members … Obedience is owed to the master, not to any enacted regulation. However, it is owed to the master only by virtue of his traditional status. (p. 231)

Charismatic authority and gerontocratic authority supplied by Dwarka are crucial for Manav to win over Ambikapur. Unlike Weber’s rational-legal authority, these two types of authority are based on convention and are not available for logical examination. Manav needs this edge and some others of the traditional variety to wring Ambikapur from Arjun. It is therefore of interest to note that the surname of Manav is Raghavendra while that of Arjun is Singh.

Though surnames are not always exact indicators of varna identity yet it can be safely argued that Raghavendra, a fusion between Ragahav i.e. Rama and Indra, is highly unlikely to be a Sudra or an Ati-Sudra surname. On the other hand, Singh is a ubiquitous surname that cuts across varna except that of the Brahmin in most instances. It may thus be argued that the engineered ascendancy of Manav over Arjun in ‘Satyagraha’ is also an implicit representation of the desire of the varna triad to retain their political influence over the Sudra and Ati-Sudra which includes dominant jatis. Their numerical capital has made them a formidable opponent at the ballot.

Dominant jatis are those that have land ownership and thus economic clout but not varna privilege (Srinivas, 1959). This allows them to wield local power and exert political influence in various permutations and combinations with their numerical strength and its mobilisation at the ballot. Post Emergency, dominant jatis have posed a serious challenge to the political monopoly of privileged groups and have strived for upward mobility. For instance, the Yadavs of the Hindi heartland, where pro-filmic Ambikapur is certainly located, began to organise themselves via social institutions and political parties in regional politics and national powerplays through the 1980s. This period witnessed the implementation of the recommendations made by the Mandal Commission. It further allowed the dominant jatis to pursue affirmative action in states like Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu where Marathas and Thevars sought political power (Jaffrelot and Kumar, 2021).

The churn has been met with significant impediments offered by privileged groups. As a numerical minority, they have often resorted to legal challenges and urban protests (Menon and Nigam, 2011, pp. 15-35). To reiterate, appointments and not election to the all-powerful Jan Lokpal would have helped them sidestep the electoral process (Bharadwaj, 2011). The privileged groups hoped that this extra-electoral strategy would help them somewhat to save their long-held position in the infrastructure of the state. The calculated ascendancy of Manav over Arjun is a likely response to such anxieties in the face of stiff competition.

Spatial struggle for leadership

The interface between two different economic-cultural territories i.e. the global-urban and the semi-urban is an important element of study in ‘Satyagraha’. Ambikapur was not devoid of democratic activity before the arrival of Manav. Dwarka as retired headmaster, Arjun as political ‘dada’, Indrajeet as campaigning lawyer and Akhilesh as dedicated engineer are all active citizens. But the cinematic narrative performs an erasure of these political subjects by cursory reference to their struggles and that too in visual absentia. The stage is set for the advent of the saviour i.e. Manav — cinematic representation of the metropolitan elite in India.

In the opening scene, a train chugs into Ambikapur station. It brings Manav from New Delhi to visit his friend Akhilesh. This first meeting between the global-urban and the semi-urban is fraught with tension. Dwarka as a moral figure cannot stand Manav because of his single-minded interest in wealth and profit. Manav is unable to convince Akhilesh to join him because the engineer is committed to the development of Ambikapur and intends to run a school there after retirement. The global-urban and the semi-urban are in conflict with each other at this instance. So much so that a disagreement with Dwarka forces Manav to leave Ambikapur.

At the introductory instance in ‘Satyagraha’, if the relation between the metropolis and the town is based on what Michel Foucault (2007) has called ‘juridical’ i.e. prohibition, that between them in the rest of the film is based on what he has called ‘disciplinary’ i.e. correction (pp. 24–30). By employing social media, by advocating the non-payment of bribes, by refusing help from political parties and by appealing for non-violence against Balram, the metropolis via Manav instructs the town about political action. As a political geography, the global-urban thus functions as the capital on the semi-urban. The latter is a space which the capital must command as territory. Foucault (2007) observes:

The capital must also have a moral role, and diffuse throughout the territory all that is necessary to command people with regard to their conduct and ways of doing things. The capital must give the example of good morals. The capital must be the place where the holy orators are the best and are best heard, and it must also be the site of academies, since they must give birth to the sciences and truth … (p. 28)

What Foucault (2007) has identified as ‘circulation’ is also necessary to understand the power relation between political geographies for authority over those who reside there i.e. populations (pp. 31–35). The IAC Movement was characterised by frenzied news reportage. The news media attempted to generate a single event for the viewing public and dedicated 90% of news time to agitation (Muralidharan, 2011, p. 19). It thus emerged as a virtual site where the IAC Movement unfolded simultaneously.

The news media attempted to represent a mostly metropolitan phenomenon as a countrywide occurrence. It managed to summon an event, largely limited to New Delhi, into a nation-wide agenda. ‘Satyagraha’ takes this hyper-real trail into the cinematic frame. The global-urban inside the cinematic frame is an invasion. It must rouse the apparently clueless semi-urban so that the cinematic frame becomes an extension of the hyper-real IAC Movement. Manav and Yasmin generate propaganda in Ambikapur via news media and social media. These are penetrative routes that open up the semi-urban Ambikapur to the global-urban New Delhi and beyond. These are cultural roads that the global-urban geography must construct inside the semi-urban geography to establish control. Foucault (2007) thus writes:

It involved cutting routes through the town [capital] … allowing for surveillance … In other words, it was a matter of organising circulation, eliminating its dangerous elements, making a division between good and bad circulation, and maximising the good circulation by diminishing the bad mainly for the town’s [capital’s] consumption and for its trade with the outside. (p. 34)

Screens on various machines — mobile phones, personal computers, tablets, televisions — constitute the information highways that connect the global-urban and the semi-urban in ‘Satyagraha’. Unending television news on the anti-corruption politics in Ambikapur initiates a sort of ‘screen capitalism’ and rouses the imagined community called a nation.Footnote 9 In fact, it is safe to recognise the screen as a character in the film. It plays key roles: (i) the affective — when Manav is nostalgic to find that animation of their drunken evening is a screensaver on the computer of deceased Akhilesh (ii) the whistle-blower — when the computer screen reveals that there was an evil motive to murder Akhilesh.

But more important is the omnipresent role that the screen plays in the form of social media. Thousands take to the virtual platform to support Dwarka and his followers. The cinematic screen presents social media via techniques of superimposition — messages in social media, from an infinite universe, are superimposed on the anti-corruption politics in Ambikapur. They promote a sense of ubiquitous involvement as they appear vertically and horizontally like tickers on news television. The messages on social media are overwhelmingly in English.Footnote 10 But posters and banners in Ambikapur are mostly in Hindi. English is not only a language but also a marker of power. So its emergence on social media is too much of a coincidence to be not reckoned as the advance of the global-urban on the semi-urban.

The Hindi–English chant ‘Janta (Public) Rocks, Janta (Public) Talks’ that the protesters sing indicates the same cultural advance perhaps.

The cinematic narrative about to unfold is unknown to the viewing public of ‘Satyagraha’. But interpellated by the mediatised messages of the IAC Movement, they make a somewhat readied subject. Such construction of elite leadership and global-urban supremacy exists outside the cinematic frame and ‘Satyagraha’ refers to it constantly.

This is why the viewing public of ‘Satyagraha’ may be outside the cinematic frame but remains inside the fiction that is relayed across screens — phone, computer, television or cinema. To populations, ‘Satyagraha’ is another invitation by the media to enter the grand design of social hierarchy and spatial invasion.

Conclusion

As mentioned towards the beginning of this essay, there is no dearth of films in Bollywood that have portrayed anti-corruption politics in India. But most of them have focused on the lead actor, usually the male protagonist along with his aides, and his daring fight against the unscrupulous villain. This is precisely why there is the absence of a political crowd within which such a lead actor can operate. In the rare case of such a presence, in ‘Rang de Basanti’ (2006) for instance, it is usually to mirror the role of the viewers who only watch but do not participate in what is clearly the ambit of the lead actor. This is how the script amplifies the distinction between the lead actor and the onlooker.

Anti-corruption politics has had a long existence in independent India. It has been registered in the history of party-based politics as well as that inspired by civil society. ‘Satyagraha’ is an instance in Bollywood where the latter has been represented with its ambitions and anxieties and its struggle to retain power against the stiff challenge posed by political society (Chatterjee, 2004, pp. 27–52). It underlines social dynamics, particularly those with reference to caste and class, which shape the portrayal of leadership on screen. The elevation of Manav over Arjun suggests a calculated response by privileged groups to the challenges they face from dominant jatis in electoral India. Such tension resonates across ‘Satyagraha’ and adds an important layer to the on-screen depiction of leadership struggles.

In ‘Satyagraha’, the struggle for leadership reveals a complex interplay of authority and power. The film juxtaposes the global-urban Manav with the semi-urban Arjun to emphasise the moot point of brain versus brawn. Manav’s sudden ascendancy as the leader of the ‘jan satyagraha’ is driven by his intelligence and corporate savvy — a depiction that is embedded in a larger commentary on politics and society. Character arcs and cinematic techniques put forth Manav and not Arjun as the natural heir to lead Ambikapur. It thus furthers a narrative that reinforces the supremacy of the metropolitan elite over the country common.

As the moral and charismatic guardian of Ambikapur, Dwarka serves as a crucial enabler of Manav’s rise. His character embodies authority which blends charisma and tradition. The six instances where Dwarka is positioned at the door symbolise his role as the moral gatekeeper of the cultural space in Ambikapur. Via acts of strict discipline and convenient forgiveness, Dwarka legitimises Manav’s journey from an unscrupulous tycoon to a moral leader. Their surnames suggest that both belong to the uppermost varna.

The film also crafts a spatial struggle for domination which highlights the tension between the global-urban and the semi-urban. Ambikapur is initially depicted as democratic and self-sufficient but is gradually redefined via the arrival of Manav. Alongside him, the global-urban capital invades the semi-urban periphery and mirrors what is understood as spatial politics. The film bridges the geographical divide and presents the global-urban as the ultimate source of authority.

‘Satyagraha’ is thus not only a story of individual heroism but also a broader commentary on political geography and social hierarchy. It depicts the persistent contestation between traditional authorities and modern aspirations in a cinematic struggle for leadership in an instance of anti-corruption politics.