Set in the locality of Uttar Pradesh, written by Apurva Asrani and directed by Hansal Mehta, Aligarh is a depiction of the real life accounts of Srinivas Ramchandra Siras (played by Manoj Bajpayee), a 64-year old Marathi professor and the chairman of the Classical Modern Indian Languages Faculty at the famed Aligarh Muslim University (“AMU”) who was suspended from his position on the grounds of “gross misconduct” in accordance with the principles of morality set by the University, simply because his sexual preferences did not subscribe to the “order of nature,” i.e., he was gay.[i]
Aligarh can be seen as a cinematic site for defining the institutional modalities of sexuality and the homophobic structure of the Indian society through which the sexual code of heteronormativity is showcased. This is coupled with the subsequent reinforcement of skewed conceptions of “morality” upon individuals who act aberrant to these established cultural norms. The film reflects on the society’s stereotypical and bigoted outlook toward individuals of varied sexual orientations, which are placed on a higher pedestal against basic virtues of mutual dignity, individual privacy, and cultural empathy. Apart from this, the movie conveys a subtle commentary on the apparent identity and class-divide in the society, reflected over the course of Siras’s seeking of justice against the atrocities meted upon him.
The movie commences at a juncture in which Siras’s privacy is invaded by two T.V. journalists from a local newspaper, along with 4 faculty members of AMU who forcibly barge into his house. They begin filming him while he is in an intimate position with a Muslim male rickshaw-puller (this man’s identity is of importance to this review, as will be highlighted in the subsequent paragraphs). This succession of events brings upon a myriad of troubles for Siras. He is sacked from his position of Chairman and forced to vacate his housing premises owing to a seven-day legal notice. His friends and foes verbally abuse and ostracize him, and he is denied housing around the AMU locality. Soon isolated from his surroundings, his will to live reaches an all-time low.
Fortunately, Deepu Sebastian (Rajkummar Rao), a young and talented journalist from Delhi, enters his life. After being allocated to cover Siras’s story, his fundamental aim is to find out the reason behind the absence of action taken against Siras’s privacy invaders, and why nobody dared to question the injustices meted out by the university authorities. As the two of them start sharing a bond of trust, we learn about the intricacies of the professor’s past and present life, revealing the professor to be no more or less than a normal human being, despite being vilified by his community on the grounds of his sexual orientation.
In order to seek justice for the invasion of privacy, and his untimely removal from AMU, Siras files a case through the Allahabad High Court. He is represented by gay rights lawyer and activist Anand Grover, who led the Naz Foundation Case for the repeal of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized homosexuality in India in front of the Delhi High Court. Issues of constitutional rights, privacy, and freedom of sexual orientation are taken up in front of the Court. After thorough questioning and scrutiny, the Court’s judgment passes in favor of the professor, revoking his suspension and reinstating him as Chairman.
Astonishingly, just one night prior to his return to the AMU premises, Siras’s deceased body is found in his bedroom. Subsequently, local media and police forces arrive at the scene. Upon forensic examination, traces of poison are found in his blood, and foul play is suspected. However, the actual circumstances behind his death remain unrevealed to the film’s audiences, leaving the finale open to interpretation and rendition.[ii] An obvious connection to the death can be made to individuals having connections with AMU. However, an alternate interpretation could involve the idea of how marginalized individuals like Siras who are forced to live their lives fighting societal obstacles often disappear into oblivion, with only a few left to tell the tale in the future.
The issues raised and discussions carried across the movie make it a cinematic milestone for the Indian film industry and society as a whole. The year 2010, in which this film takes place, saw the discussion around the decriminalization of homosexuality beginning to take concrete shape, especially after the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Naz Foundation v. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi[iii]. Consequently, this paved the way for certain community-based sentiments in favor of bolstering LGBTQIA+ rights in India.[iv]
Nevertheless, for AMU’s authorities, their moral codes of conduct received a higher priority over certain fundamental rights conferred by the Indian Constitution upon its citizens. Their approach was inherently discriminatory because of the biased regulations incorporated as part of their moral policy. Combat against the flawed societal conception of “morality,” as well as prejudices against marginalized groups, stands as the fundamental premise championed by the movie’s narrative.
In furtherance of this fundamental premise, the movie beautifully and tragically paints pictures of the realities behind the exercise of such prejudices by depicting power politics and the quest to gain authority by the majority at the expense of oppressing individuals from marginalized communities. In a particular scene, Siras exclaims that “Aligarh jaise sheher mai bhi Marathi padhane ke baawajud mai Linguistics Department ka Head banaya gaya. Yeh sab mere tarakki se jalte hai.” (Translation: Even though I teach Marathi in a city such as Aligarh, they’ve made me the head of the University Linguistics Department; they all are jealous of my achievements). By saying this, Siras brings out the layers addressed toward diversity, representation and individual privilege. Essentially, the dialogue makes an indication toward the environment surrounding the academic atmosphere at AMU – individuals like Siras who belong to a different culture, and speak the language of a different region can also take up leadership roles amongst those that make up the “local” AMU crowd.
Apart from exhibiting the harsh realities of discrimination based on sexual preference that exist in Indian society (and across the world) today, this movie marvelously portrays old Siras’s perception of his victimization and acceptance of his identity, teaching viewers valuable lessons in the process. Time and again, he refuses to label himself as gay. By having the courage to remain outside the binary of sexual orientation labels, and refusing to identify toward any particular category, he thus prefers to explore his individuality and respect his idiosyncrasies.[v] Nonetheless, he desires to remain within the closet, and so perceives it as an attack on his integrity and dignity when his privacy gets egregiously invaded. He believes that a mere three letter connotation does not possess the right to designate his internal feelings, and love as an emotion holds a much deeper value to him. According to Siras, “Yeh shabd mere bhavnaao ke gehraai ko bayaan nahi kar sakte. Aur pyaar ek shabd hai, jisse likha nahi, samjha jaana chahiye” (It cannot describe the deepness of my feelings, and love is such a word that should not be written, but understood). Siras – always an introvert – found little solaces throughout his life within little things, like the pleasure brought from a glass of alcohol, or the sound of Lata Mangeshkar’s musical hits. He never feared isolation, but always looked forward to overcoming it, ultimately in vain. His only aspirations in life were to live with dignity and respect while enjoying the little pleasures he got from his poetry, music, and films.
On a lighter note, a rather significant (yet, underrated) aspect of this movie lies in the character of Deepu Sebastian, the young journalist from New Delhi who in the process of obtaining an interview with Siras becomes close friends with him. Through the depiction of Sebastian’s wild and carefree, yet sensitive and empathetic character, the director depicts a tiny silver lining in our society. Deepu represents the social authentication and intersectional allyship that marginalized individuals require in order to feel comfortable with their identity and existence.[vi][vii]
The various courtroom scenes across the movie stand as the edifices for this cinematic masterpiece. Through the depiction of foundational questions of constitutionality, morality, and legality, the director successfully presents to us the intersection between legal justice and backward societal thinking. The rationale behind the suspension of Siras was that his conduct went against the ethics of the university’s moral code. However, a peculiar question posed by Siras’s lawyer (Anand Grover) captivates the audience’s attention: “Kya naitikta ki paribhasha hum sab ke liye ek samaan hai?” (Translation: “Is the definition of morality supposed to be the same for all of us?”). Furthermore, if the nation’s Constitution provides a citizen with a particular fundamental right, is a third party (here, the AMU) allowed to create a hindrance to that right? Is it justified that these hindrances take place at the expense of the professor’s privacy and reputation at the University?
Although the movie does not overtly address this issue, a saddening reality to ponder upon during the Court proceedings lies in how the rickshaw-puller and the violation of his rights are downright disregarded by the lawyers and the Court alike, showcasing how an invisible class divide, combined with a prejudice toward minority rights, still exists. Just because he was a “gareeb Muslim naujawaan” (poor Muslim youth), allegations against his dignity are ignored even by the guardians of justice. This compels the audience to reflect upon the plight of such fellow citizens, and how customs and predetermined mindsets ruin rational thinking to its fullest. The law condemning homosexuality in India stands as an outdated model of morality, and its internalization within the mindset of many Indians thereby makes many of them rigidly against bringing about amendments to said model, despite the apparent dynamism of the society as a whole.[viii]
Aligarh paints a gruesome picture of how people in an Orwellian state neglect to take necessary steps to overcome their prejudices and respect an individual’s personal identity, space, and freedom. Critically acclaimed at the box office, the plethora of emotions, poignant sequences, and bold cinematography depicted throughout the movie, in addition to stellar performances from Manoj Bajpayee and Rajkummar Rao, make Aligarh one of the Indian film industry’s bravest and finest pieces in terms of its bold storytelling and underlying social justice messages. Siras’s experiences across the movie – from being forcefully filmed, shamefully dismissed, and unequivocally ostracized – showcase a horrid reality which holds sway in many countries in today’s modern world. However, at various instances, the director does resort to an over-romanticization of Siras’s character, without addressing layered issues such as caste, class, and social capital that remain unnoticed from the outset.
Nonetheless, the vision behind this film was ahead of its time, as it etched impactful notions that still stand concretely today. In the end, the audience is forced to grapple with various questions ranging from topics of individual sexuality, morality, privacy, and power struggles.[ix] Although the movie received backlash from homophobic and conservative groups across the country, it went on to receive various nominations, with Manoj Bajpayee winning the Critics’ Award for Best Actor at the 62nd Filmfare Awards, and the Best Actor at the 10th Asia Pacific Screen Awards.[x]
This year marks the film’s sixth year anniversary, and reflections of the storyline are still pertinent to India today in terms of achieving acceptance and normalization of people who do not subscribe to a heteronormative binary. However, there has since been minimal progress in terms of legal equality for LGBTQIA+ individuals. There remains an abundance of discrimination, and same-sex couples are neither legally recognized, nor offered limited rights such as a civil union or a domestic partnership.[xi] The battle toward equal identity rights stands strong today – and one can only hope that the Indian film industry keeps producing content similar to Aligarh until the final goals are achieved.
Author Biography
Mustafa Rajkotwala is an undergraduate student at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.
Film Details
Aligarh (2015)
India
Director Hansal Mehta
Runtime 114 minutes
[i] “Aligarh,” IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5121000/.
[ii] BBC, “Why A Gay Indian Professor’s Death Inspired a Film,” British Broadcasting Corporation, Feb. 26, 2016, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35638215.
[iii] Nandini Sharma, “Aligarh: The Story of Life and Death of Dr. Shrinivas Ramchandra Siras,” Business Insider India, Feb. 02, 2016, https://www.businessinsider.in/aligarh-movie-on-amu-professor-dr-siras/articleshow/50816657.cms.
[iv] Note: In order to provide context to the global reader, Naz Foundation is a landmark Indian case decided by a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court, which held that treating consensual homosexual sex between adults as a crime is a violation of fundamental rights protected by India’s Constitution. The verdict resulted in the decriminalization of homosexual acts involving consenting adults throughout India. This was later overturned by the Supreme Court of India in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, wherein a 2 judge bench reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. However, this was finally overturned by a 5 judge bench in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India in 2018, decriminalizing homosexuality in India.
[v] Manas Firaq Bhattachrjee, “Section 377, Aligarh and the Curious Case of Dr. Siras,” The Wire, Feb. 02, 2016, https://thewire.in/law/section-377-aligarh-and-the-curious-case-of-dr-siras.
[vi] Ashok Row Kavi, “A Masterpiece of Cinematic Skills, ‘Aligarh’ Has a Lot to Say About the Way We Perceive Homosexuals,” FirstPost, Nov. 04, 2015, https://www.firstpost.com/living/aligarh-what-this-compelling-drama-tells-us-about-our-approach-to-homosexuals-2493926.html.
[vii] Shree Atcheson, “Allyship – The Key to Unlocking the Power of Diversity” Forbes, Nov. 30, 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/shereeatcheson/2018/11/30/allyship-the-key-to-unlocking-the-power-of-diversity/?sh=26f3552449c6.
[viii] Nishant Shahani, “Queer Intimacy During Seditious Times: Revisiting the Case of Ramchandra Siras” South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal, 20, 16 April 2019, doi:10.1017/S000819730001789X.
[ix] Kyle Knight, “Section 377 Is History but Young LGBT Indians Need Concrete Policies to Protect Them from Bullying,” Human Rights Watch, Jun. 24, 2019, https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/06/24/section-377-history-young-lgbt-indians-need-concrete-policies-protect-them-bullying.
[x] Supra, note 1.
[xi] Filip Noubel, “The State of LGBTQ+ Rights: ‘India Does Not Have Anti-Discrimination Code,’” Business Standard, Jul. 12, 2020, https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/the-state-of-lgbtq-rights-india-does-not-have-anti-discrimination-code-120071200179_1.html.
