An analysis of the use of the cricket metaphor in Ashutosh Gowariker's film Lagaan indicates how cricket, the once proud cultural form of colonial Britain, is subverted in such a way that it becomes a tool for decolonization. According to Appadurai, “decolonization is a dialogue with the colonial past, and not a simple dismantling of the colonial habits and modes of life.”[1] Relating his conception of decolonization to cricket, Appadurai argues, “Nowhere are the complexities and ambiguities of this dialogue more evident than in the vicissitudes of cricket in cricket in those countries that were once part of the British Empire.”[2] Lagaan’s treatment of cricket, which is largely reflective of the South Asian treatment of cricket over the past century, could be seen as a celebration of Appadurai’s conception of decolonization. This treatment of cricket, which is more of an appropriation of a reality that is fundamentally colonial in character than of a rejection of the reality, provides important insights into the tension between colonialism and postcolonialism. In my view, this appropriation problematizes the (mis)conception of a dichotomous relationship between colonialism and postcolonialism and introduces a sense of historical continuity to the broader picture of which the phases of colonialism and postcolonialism are part. It introduces a perspective that recognizes certain possibilities for postcolonialism in colonialism and an element of colonialism in postcolonialism.
In the film, the appropriation of cricket primarily takes the form of an indigenization of the sport. Considering the highly structured nature of the sport, Appadurai argues that cricket is “a hard cultural form that changes those who are socialized into it more readily than it is itself changed.”[3] At the same time he also argues that cricket has successfully become indigenized in India.[4] Trying to explain this puzzle or apparent contradiction, Appadurai cites Ashis Nandy’s article “On Tao of Cricket: In Games of Destiny and the Destiny of Games” where Nandy makes the claim that “there are mythic structures beneath the surface of the sport that make it profoundly Indian in spite of its Western historical origins.”[5] This understanding points to a situation where cricket has transcended the temporal realm and entered a mythical realm.
Lagaan contains several scenes that point to a mythicization of cricket. The first instance of mythicization comes in the scene where Bhuvan tries to convince his fellow villagers that cricket is doable and the match winnable, especially at a time when the villagers including Bhuvan have no clue what cricket is. Bhuvan takes a bat that he himself has made and asks Tipu, his young companion, to bowl so that he could demonstrate to the others how to bat. Bhuvan misses the first two balls, but he becomes successful in his third attempt. He strikes so hard that the ball goes flying and hits the bell of the Hindu temple located at the top of a nearby hill. The ringing of the bell caused by Bhuvan’s strike comes across as an auspicious beginning not just for Bhuvan’s project, but also for the future of cricket in the Indian subcontinent. This scene conveys the idea that Indian cricket is not just a sport but a sport that has the blessings of the protecting gods. The scene featuring the performance of religious rituals primarily by the senior members of the village community with the aim of invoking blessings on the village team just before they enter the ground on the first day of the match could be seen as another instance of the mythicization of cricket in the film. This performance of religious rituals in the wake of the match points to the underlying assumption that there is an extra-temporal dimension to the sport in the Indian context and emphasizes the presence of some sort of a divine intervention in the match. The scene that involves Bhuvan and Deva worshiping the ground by touching the ground in the way they would touch the floor of a temple further emphasizes the extra-temporal dimension that the sport has acquired in the Indian context. This act of worshiping the ground before stepping into it transforms the cricket field into a sacred site, and this transformation also emphasizes the idea that Indian cricket is a reality of religious and spiritual importance. Finally, on the night before the final day of the match, at a time when victory appears to be a rather unrealistic goal for the village team, the villagers are seen pleading with the gods in the village temple requesting them to help them win the match. This pleading, which takes the form of a request for a direct divine intervention in the match, conveys the implication that the village team are in an alliance with their protecting gods for the purpose of winning the match. This projected alliance elevates not just the match in the film, but the whole of Indian cricket to the level of a spiritual activity. The spiritualization of cricket that these instances indicate points to an important dimension of the indigenization of the sport in the Indian context.
In the context of Lagaan, the indigenization of the sport could be seen taking place within the structure of the sport itself. In an attempt to win the angry villagers over to his side and convince them of the “doability” of the game, he draws parallels between cricket and the local sport called ‘gilli-danda’. This conceptualization of cricket in terms of ‘gilli-danda’ indicates a radical redefinition of the structure of the sport. This redefinition reduces the ‘otherness’ of cricket by aligning it with a reality that the local community is familiar with. Although this alignment eases the transition of the villagers into cricket, in a context where the image of ‘gilli-danda’ continues to define cricket for them, it could be argued that what they perceive to be cricket is significantly different, even on the level of structure, from the cricket that the British rulers play.
The rather “uncricketish” batting and bowling styles developed and adopted by certain members of the village team indicate a radical indigenization of the sport. At one point in the match, being unable to comprehend and face the bawling style of one of the members (Goli) of the local team, Captain Russell and the batsman facing the bawler lodge a complaint with the umpire saying, “It is ridiculous. ... He may not be allowed to bawl the ball like this. It’s improper.” When the umpire is not sure what to say Elizabeth intervenes and argues for the local team. She makes the point that since there are no written rules governing the bowling style in cricket, there should not be any objections to Goli’s bawling style. Accepting Elizabeth’s argument, the umpire overrules the objection. The umpire’s decision to overrule Russell’s objection and permit Goli to continue with his bowling style indicates an instance where cricket, which the British rulers intended to use as a weapon against the indigenous community, leaving their control and becoming indigenized.
This sort of indigenization of cricket points to an important dimension of colonial resistance, which Homi Bhabha calls mimicry. Explaining what he means by mimicry, Bhabha writes: "It is from this area between mimicry and mockery, where the reforming, civilizing mission is threatened by the displacing gaze of its disciplinary double, that my instances of colonial imitation come. What they all share is a discursive process by which the excess or slippage produced by the ambivalence of mimicry (almost the same, but not quite) does not merely “rupture” the discourse, but becomes transformed into an uncertainty which fixes the colonial subject as a “partial” presence. By “partial” I mean both “incomplete” and “virtual.” It is as if the very emergence of the “colonial” is dependent for its representation upon some strategic limitation or prohibition within the authoritative discourse itself. The success of colonial appropriation depends on a proliferation of inappropriate objects that ensure its strategic failure, so that mimicry is at once resemblance and menace."[6]
Michael Taussig expresses a similar idea when he argues, “An impossible but necessary, indeed an everyday affair, mimesis registers both sameness and difference, of being like, and of being Other.”[7] The cricket that the local team plays embodies the ambivalence of mimicry/mimesis that Bhabha and Taussig talk about. The way Captain Russell reacts to Bhuvan’s acceptance of Russell’s challenge to a cricket match clearly conveys Russell’s conviction that the villagers are going to fail miserably in trying to play their sport, the sport of the colonizer. It also shows his conviction that their mastery of the rules of the sport have already placed them in an invincible position. These convictions show Russell’s assumption that the local team is going to play the exact same sport with the exact same rules. Contrary to this assumption, the cricket that the local team plays turns out to be “almost the same, but not quite”; the rules that the local team is governed by turn out to be “almost the same, but not quite”. This almost-the-same-but-not-quite approach of the local team spins the game in their favour. Due to this approach, the kind of cricket that the British rulers were expecting of the local team is only partially present in the match. When they begin to realize that the part that is absent has determined the result of the game their fate is already sealed.
This sort of colonial resistance, in my view, points to Foucault’s broader conception of resistance. Describing the relationship between power and resistance, Foucault writes: "Where there is power, there is resistance, and yet, or rather consequentially, this resistance is never in a position of exteriority in relation to power. Should it be said that one is always ‘inside’ power, there is no ‘escaping’ it, there is no absolute outside where it is concerned, because one is subject to the law in any case? Or that, history being the ruse of reason, power is the ruse of history, always emerging the winner? This would be to misunderstand the strictly relational character of power relationships. Their existence depends on a multiplicity of points of resistance: these play the role of adversary, target, support, or handle in power relations. These points of resistance are present everywhere in the power network. Hence there is no single locus of great Refusal, no soul of revolt, source of all rebellions, or pure law of the revolutionary. Instead there is a plurality of resistances, each of them a special case: resistances that are possible, necessary, improbable; others that are spontaneous, savage, solitary, concerted, rampant, or violent; still others that are quick to compromise, interested, or sacrificial; by definition, they can only exist in the strategic field of power relations."[8] Foucault’s conceptualization of resistance recognizes resistance as an integral part of power. According to him, the possibility for resistance is a “built-in” component of power. From this assumption, it logically follows that any exercise of power invariably creates space for resistance. The resistance that emerges out of this space could take any form; therefore, there is no single, (pre)defined locus of resistance. This absence of a single, (pre)defined locus of resistance is, in my view, what accounts for the unpredictability and, in certain instances, “uncontainability” of resistance.
The events leading up to the villagers’ victory over the colonial rulers in cricket indicate both the unpredictability and “uncontainability” of resistance. On one level, the villagers’ response takes the form of overt confrontation. Fighting the oppressor on the cricket pitch could be seen as an example for this form of resistance. On another level, it takes the form of submission to the oppressor, and this sense of submission could be seen in Bhuvan’s acceptance of the terms laid down by Russell for the match and the villagers’ decision to learn and master the art of the sport, which is first and foremost a colonial, therefore, oppressive reality. The presence of such binary oppositional points of resistance in what appears to be a unified act of resistance indicates that there is no single, (pre)defined locus for the resistance in question. This absence of a locus destabilizes and disorients the colonial rulers in such a way that their authority begins to be challenged in the least expected ways and they eventually lose control over the situation. Elizabeth, Puran Singh, and Lakha’s reactions to Russell’s conduct could be shown as a case in point. They initially come across as Russell’s confidantes, but they defy Russell at the height of the struggle. These instances of resistance point to the unpredictable and uncontainable nature of resistance.
An important dimension of resistance that the cricket match appears to highlight is Gandhian non-violent resistance. Parel theorizes Gandhian non-violence as “an ethic that disposes one (a) to resist social and political violence by peaceful means, and (b) to take positive measures to remove the materials and moral conditions that foster violence.”[9] The idea of achieving one’s end goals without resorting to violent measures is inherent in this understanding of the notion. The cricket match provides an opportunity to resist the violence enacted by the colonial rulers and eventually remove the material and moral conditions that foster violence. It enables Bhuvan, the Gandhian figure in the film, to recognize the anger and resentment beginning to grow in the minds of the villagers and channel them in a humanity-friendly manner towards achieving the end goal of economic independence. Here, Bhuvan represents the Gandhian citizen “whose end is not only the well being of the individual but also the good of society taken as a whole ... [which] requires active, non-violent resistance to violence.”[10] In the following description of Bhuvan by Farred, the Gandhian dimension of the battle against the oppressor becomes evident: "Bhuvan becomes the very incarnation of Indian resistance: He symbolizes a Gandhian India, the subcontinent united. He is the heroic young villager grown impatient with the injustices of colonial rule, disaffected with the complicity of the colonized, and tired of economic hardship."[11] Bhuvan’s ability to unite a community divided along ethnic, religious, and caste lines, the sense of selflessness with which he works for the wellbeing of his community, and his ability to break through the conventional social barriers in leading the community towards the common goal of economic and political emancipation creates a consciousness that runs parallel to the consciousness that guided India to independence from British colonialism. This parallel, in my view, both historicizes and legitimizes the struggle that the film is woven around.
The non-violent resistance dimension of the struggle depicted in Lagaan indicates how cricket becomes a platform for the creation of a national identity for India. An analysis of the composition of the village cricket team would show that the team is much more than a mere cricket team. The team represents the three main identities in India that are defined along religious and ethnic lines and that emerged prominent during the time of the IFM and the post-independence era – Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh. While the Hindu (Bhuvan) captains the team and guides the team to victory, the Muslim (Ismail) and the Sikh (Deva) render an indispensable service to the team. The other key identity represented in the team is the Dalit identity, the identity of the untouchable. Kachra represents this identity. The unique bawling skill that Kachra displays makes him a unique resource and indispensable member of the team. The film makes it clear that Bhuvan would not have been able to achieve the goal without the tremendous support that he received from Ismail, Deva, and Kachra.
Considering the conflictual, even hostile, relationships that the Muslims, Sikhs, and Dalits have been in with the majority Hindus (and also with each other to a certain extent) in India’s history,[12] especially in the postcolonial era, the placement of these characters in hierarchical, but harmonious relations with each other could be seen as making a political statement regarding the overarching Indian identity. The film creates an idealized, almost utopian, Indian identity that is markedly different from the Indian identity found on the ground level. Considering this disconnect, the idealized Indian identity that the film presents could be seen as the identity of an ‘imagined community’[13] in the sense that Benedict Anderson discusses the term. Ironically, what provides the platform for the creation/imagining of this idealized Indian identity is cricket, the prerogative of the colonial rulers who used the divide-and-rule strategy[14] to keep the Indian society divided. Focusing on how Lagaan conceptualizes the relationship between cricket and an Indian national identity, Neumann argues: "Thus, it is cricket that unites the villagers in their common pursuit, very much in accordance with the sport’s imperatives of camaraderie and loyalty. The game literary becomes a means of re-membering the formerly dis-membered village. Paradoxically, it is the appropriation of the essentially English game that allows for an invention of an Indian community with a distinct sense of identity."[15] This appropriation of the essentially English, therefore, colonial, game for the invention of an identity for the colonized/postcolonial runs parallel to Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin’s concept of ‘the Empire writing back.’[16] In keeping with this concept, what is seen in Lagaan, which reflects the superior position that India and the rest of South Asia hold in today’s cricket world,[17] could be conceptualized as ‘the Empire striking back.’
This analysis shows how Lagaan points to a case of cricket, which once appeared to be an exclusive property of the colonizer, is indigenized and used as a powerful weapon by the colonized against the colonizer with the aim of achieving economic and political independence. The tremendous success that not only India, but also the entire South Asian region has achieved in the world of cricket, evidenced by India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka emerging world champions of cricket over the past three decades, indicates the extent to which the reality that Lagaan presents is a reflection of the postcolonial condition of South Asia.
[1] Arjun Appadurai, Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996): 89.
[2] Ibid., 89.
[3] Ibid., 90.
[4] Ibid., 90.
[5] Ibid., 90.
[6] Homi Bhabha, “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse,” October 28 (1984): 125-33.
[7] Michael Taussig, Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses (New York: Routledge, 1993).
[8] Michel Foucault, History of Sexuality: Volume 1: An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978): 95-96.
[9] Anthony Parel, “Gandhi and the Ethic of Active Non-Violence,” Prajna Vihara 10, no. 1/2 (2009): 96.
[10] Ibid., 96.
[11] Farred, 97.
[12] See Ashutosh Varshney, Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002).
[13] See Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, rev. ed. (London: Verso, 2006).
[14] See Sumit Sarkar, Modern India, 1885-1947 (New York, St Martin’s Press, 1989).
[15] Birgit Neumann, “Re-Membering Cricket: Sport as an Instrument of Decolonization in Trobriand Cricket (1976) and Lagaan. Once Upon a Time in India (2001),” Contemporary Theatre Review 16, no. 4 (2006): 478.
[16] Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin, The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2004).
[17] See Amit Gupta, “India and the IPL: Cricket’s Globalized Empire,” The Round Table 98, no. 104 (2009).
In the film, the appropriation of cricket primarily takes the form of an indigenization of the sport. Considering the highly structured nature of the sport, Appadurai argues that cricket is “a hard cultural form that changes those who are socialized into it more readily than it is itself changed.”[3] At the same time he also argues that cricket has successfully become indigenized in India.[4] Trying to explain this puzzle or apparent contradiction, Appadurai cites Ashis Nandy’s article “On Tao of Cricket: In Games of Destiny and the Destiny of Games” where Nandy makes the claim that “there are mythic structures beneath the surface of the sport that make it profoundly Indian in spite of its Western historical origins.”[5] This understanding points to a situation where cricket has transcended the temporal realm and entered a mythical realm.
Lagaan contains several scenes that point to a mythicization of cricket. The first instance of mythicization comes in the scene where Bhuvan tries to convince his fellow villagers that cricket is doable and the match winnable, especially at a time when the villagers including Bhuvan have no clue what cricket is. Bhuvan takes a bat that he himself has made and asks Tipu, his young companion, to bowl so that he could demonstrate to the others how to bat. Bhuvan misses the first two balls, but he becomes successful in his third attempt. He strikes so hard that the ball goes flying and hits the bell of the Hindu temple located at the top of a nearby hill. The ringing of the bell caused by Bhuvan’s strike comes across as an auspicious beginning not just for Bhuvan’s project, but also for the future of cricket in the Indian subcontinent. This scene conveys the idea that Indian cricket is not just a sport but a sport that has the blessings of the protecting gods. The scene featuring the performance of religious rituals primarily by the senior members of the village community with the aim of invoking blessings on the village team just before they enter the ground on the first day of the match could be seen as another instance of the mythicization of cricket in the film. This performance of religious rituals in the wake of the match points to the underlying assumption that there is an extra-temporal dimension to the sport in the Indian context and emphasizes the presence of some sort of a divine intervention in the match. The scene that involves Bhuvan and Deva worshiping the ground by touching the ground in the way they would touch the floor of a temple further emphasizes the extra-temporal dimension that the sport has acquired in the Indian context. This act of worshiping the ground before stepping into it transforms the cricket field into a sacred site, and this transformation also emphasizes the idea that Indian cricket is a reality of religious and spiritual importance. Finally, on the night before the final day of the match, at a time when victory appears to be a rather unrealistic goal for the village team, the villagers are seen pleading with the gods in the village temple requesting them to help them win the match. This pleading, which takes the form of a request for a direct divine intervention in the match, conveys the implication that the village team are in an alliance with their protecting gods for the purpose of winning the match. This projected alliance elevates not just the match in the film, but the whole of Indian cricket to the level of a spiritual activity. The spiritualization of cricket that these instances indicate points to an important dimension of the indigenization of the sport in the Indian context.
In the context of Lagaan, the indigenization of the sport could be seen taking place within the structure of the sport itself. In an attempt to win the angry villagers over to his side and convince them of the “doability” of the game, he draws parallels between cricket and the local sport called ‘gilli-danda’. This conceptualization of cricket in terms of ‘gilli-danda’ indicates a radical redefinition of the structure of the sport. This redefinition reduces the ‘otherness’ of cricket by aligning it with a reality that the local community is familiar with. Although this alignment eases the transition of the villagers into cricket, in a context where the image of ‘gilli-danda’ continues to define cricket for them, it could be argued that what they perceive to be cricket is significantly different, even on the level of structure, from the cricket that the British rulers play.
The rather “uncricketish” batting and bowling styles developed and adopted by certain members of the village team indicate a radical indigenization of the sport. At one point in the match, being unable to comprehend and face the bawling style of one of the members (Goli) of the local team, Captain Russell and the batsman facing the bawler lodge a complaint with the umpire saying, “It is ridiculous. ... He may not be allowed to bawl the ball like this. It’s improper.” When the umpire is not sure what to say Elizabeth intervenes and argues for the local team. She makes the point that since there are no written rules governing the bowling style in cricket, there should not be any objections to Goli’s bawling style. Accepting Elizabeth’s argument, the umpire overrules the objection. The umpire’s decision to overrule Russell’s objection and permit Goli to continue with his bowling style indicates an instance where cricket, which the British rulers intended to use as a weapon against the indigenous community, leaving their control and becoming indigenized.
This sort of indigenization of cricket points to an important dimension of colonial resistance, which Homi Bhabha calls mimicry. Explaining what he means by mimicry, Bhabha writes: "It is from this area between mimicry and mockery, where the reforming, civilizing mission is threatened by the displacing gaze of its disciplinary double, that my instances of colonial imitation come. What they all share is a discursive process by which the excess or slippage produced by the ambivalence of mimicry (almost the same, but not quite) does not merely “rupture” the discourse, but becomes transformed into an uncertainty which fixes the colonial subject as a “partial” presence. By “partial” I mean both “incomplete” and “virtual.” It is as if the very emergence of the “colonial” is dependent for its representation upon some strategic limitation or prohibition within the authoritative discourse itself. The success of colonial appropriation depends on a proliferation of inappropriate objects that ensure its strategic failure, so that mimicry is at once resemblance and menace."[6]
Michael Taussig expresses a similar idea when he argues, “An impossible but necessary, indeed an everyday affair, mimesis registers both sameness and difference, of being like, and of being Other.”[7] The cricket that the local team plays embodies the ambivalence of mimicry/mimesis that Bhabha and Taussig talk about. The way Captain Russell reacts to Bhuvan’s acceptance of Russell’s challenge to a cricket match clearly conveys Russell’s conviction that the villagers are going to fail miserably in trying to play their sport, the sport of the colonizer. It also shows his conviction that their mastery of the rules of the sport have already placed them in an invincible position. These convictions show Russell’s assumption that the local team is going to play the exact same sport with the exact same rules. Contrary to this assumption, the cricket that the local team plays turns out to be “almost the same, but not quite”; the rules that the local team is governed by turn out to be “almost the same, but not quite”. This almost-the-same-but-not-quite approach of the local team spins the game in their favour. Due to this approach, the kind of cricket that the British rulers were expecting of the local team is only partially present in the match. When they begin to realize that the part that is absent has determined the result of the game their fate is already sealed.
This sort of colonial resistance, in my view, points to Foucault’s broader conception of resistance. Describing the relationship between power and resistance, Foucault writes: "Where there is power, there is resistance, and yet, or rather consequentially, this resistance is never in a position of exteriority in relation to power. Should it be said that one is always ‘inside’ power, there is no ‘escaping’ it, there is no absolute outside where it is concerned, because one is subject to the law in any case? Or that, history being the ruse of reason, power is the ruse of history, always emerging the winner? This would be to misunderstand the strictly relational character of power relationships. Their existence depends on a multiplicity of points of resistance: these play the role of adversary, target, support, or handle in power relations. These points of resistance are present everywhere in the power network. Hence there is no single locus of great Refusal, no soul of revolt, source of all rebellions, or pure law of the revolutionary. Instead there is a plurality of resistances, each of them a special case: resistances that are possible, necessary, improbable; others that are spontaneous, savage, solitary, concerted, rampant, or violent; still others that are quick to compromise, interested, or sacrificial; by definition, they can only exist in the strategic field of power relations."[8] Foucault’s conceptualization of resistance recognizes resistance as an integral part of power. According to him, the possibility for resistance is a “built-in” component of power. From this assumption, it logically follows that any exercise of power invariably creates space for resistance. The resistance that emerges out of this space could take any form; therefore, there is no single, (pre)defined locus of resistance. This absence of a single, (pre)defined locus of resistance is, in my view, what accounts for the unpredictability and, in certain instances, “uncontainability” of resistance.
The events leading up to the villagers’ victory over the colonial rulers in cricket indicate both the unpredictability and “uncontainability” of resistance. On one level, the villagers’ response takes the form of overt confrontation. Fighting the oppressor on the cricket pitch could be seen as an example for this form of resistance. On another level, it takes the form of submission to the oppressor, and this sense of submission could be seen in Bhuvan’s acceptance of the terms laid down by Russell for the match and the villagers’ decision to learn and master the art of the sport, which is first and foremost a colonial, therefore, oppressive reality. The presence of such binary oppositional points of resistance in what appears to be a unified act of resistance indicates that there is no single, (pre)defined locus for the resistance in question. This absence of a locus destabilizes and disorients the colonial rulers in such a way that their authority begins to be challenged in the least expected ways and they eventually lose control over the situation. Elizabeth, Puran Singh, and Lakha’s reactions to Russell’s conduct could be shown as a case in point. They initially come across as Russell’s confidantes, but they defy Russell at the height of the struggle. These instances of resistance point to the unpredictable and uncontainable nature of resistance.
An important dimension of resistance that the cricket match appears to highlight is Gandhian non-violent resistance. Parel theorizes Gandhian non-violence as “an ethic that disposes one (a) to resist social and political violence by peaceful means, and (b) to take positive measures to remove the materials and moral conditions that foster violence.”[9] The idea of achieving one’s end goals without resorting to violent measures is inherent in this understanding of the notion. The cricket match provides an opportunity to resist the violence enacted by the colonial rulers and eventually remove the material and moral conditions that foster violence. It enables Bhuvan, the Gandhian figure in the film, to recognize the anger and resentment beginning to grow in the minds of the villagers and channel them in a humanity-friendly manner towards achieving the end goal of economic independence. Here, Bhuvan represents the Gandhian citizen “whose end is not only the well being of the individual but also the good of society taken as a whole ... [which] requires active, non-violent resistance to violence.”[10] In the following description of Bhuvan by Farred, the Gandhian dimension of the battle against the oppressor becomes evident: "Bhuvan becomes the very incarnation of Indian resistance: He symbolizes a Gandhian India, the subcontinent united. He is the heroic young villager grown impatient with the injustices of colonial rule, disaffected with the complicity of the colonized, and tired of economic hardship."[11] Bhuvan’s ability to unite a community divided along ethnic, religious, and caste lines, the sense of selflessness with which he works for the wellbeing of his community, and his ability to break through the conventional social barriers in leading the community towards the common goal of economic and political emancipation creates a consciousness that runs parallel to the consciousness that guided India to independence from British colonialism. This parallel, in my view, both historicizes and legitimizes the struggle that the film is woven around.
The non-violent resistance dimension of the struggle depicted in Lagaan indicates how cricket becomes a platform for the creation of a national identity for India. An analysis of the composition of the village cricket team would show that the team is much more than a mere cricket team. The team represents the three main identities in India that are defined along religious and ethnic lines and that emerged prominent during the time of the IFM and the post-independence era – Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh. While the Hindu (Bhuvan) captains the team and guides the team to victory, the Muslim (Ismail) and the Sikh (Deva) render an indispensable service to the team. The other key identity represented in the team is the Dalit identity, the identity of the untouchable. Kachra represents this identity. The unique bawling skill that Kachra displays makes him a unique resource and indispensable member of the team. The film makes it clear that Bhuvan would not have been able to achieve the goal without the tremendous support that he received from Ismail, Deva, and Kachra.
Considering the conflictual, even hostile, relationships that the Muslims, Sikhs, and Dalits have been in with the majority Hindus (and also with each other to a certain extent) in India’s history,[12] especially in the postcolonial era, the placement of these characters in hierarchical, but harmonious relations with each other could be seen as making a political statement regarding the overarching Indian identity. The film creates an idealized, almost utopian, Indian identity that is markedly different from the Indian identity found on the ground level. Considering this disconnect, the idealized Indian identity that the film presents could be seen as the identity of an ‘imagined community’[13] in the sense that Benedict Anderson discusses the term. Ironically, what provides the platform for the creation/imagining of this idealized Indian identity is cricket, the prerogative of the colonial rulers who used the divide-and-rule strategy[14] to keep the Indian society divided. Focusing on how Lagaan conceptualizes the relationship between cricket and an Indian national identity, Neumann argues: "Thus, it is cricket that unites the villagers in their common pursuit, very much in accordance with the sport’s imperatives of camaraderie and loyalty. The game literary becomes a means of re-membering the formerly dis-membered village. Paradoxically, it is the appropriation of the essentially English game that allows for an invention of an Indian community with a distinct sense of identity."[15] This appropriation of the essentially English, therefore, colonial, game for the invention of an identity for the colonized/postcolonial runs parallel to Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin’s concept of ‘the Empire writing back.’[16] In keeping with this concept, what is seen in Lagaan, which reflects the superior position that India and the rest of South Asia hold in today’s cricket world,[17] could be conceptualized as ‘the Empire striking back.’
This analysis shows how Lagaan points to a case of cricket, which once appeared to be an exclusive property of the colonizer, is indigenized and used as a powerful weapon by the colonized against the colonizer with the aim of achieving economic and political independence. The tremendous success that not only India, but also the entire South Asian region has achieved in the world of cricket, evidenced by India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka emerging world champions of cricket over the past three decades, indicates the extent to which the reality that Lagaan presents is a reflection of the postcolonial condition of South Asia.
[1] Arjun Appadurai, Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996): 89.
[2] Ibid., 89.
[3] Ibid., 90.
[4] Ibid., 90.
[5] Ibid., 90.
[6] Homi Bhabha, “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse,” October 28 (1984): 125-33.
[7] Michael Taussig, Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses (New York: Routledge, 1993).
[8] Michel Foucault, History of Sexuality: Volume 1: An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978): 95-96.
[9] Anthony Parel, “Gandhi and the Ethic of Active Non-Violence,” Prajna Vihara 10, no. 1/2 (2009): 96.
[10] Ibid., 96.
[11] Farred, 97.
[12] See Ashutosh Varshney, Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002).
[13] See Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, rev. ed. (London: Verso, 2006).
[14] See Sumit Sarkar, Modern India, 1885-1947 (New York, St Martin’s Press, 1989).
[15] Birgit Neumann, “Re-Membering Cricket: Sport as an Instrument of Decolonization in Trobriand Cricket (1976) and Lagaan. Once Upon a Time in India (2001),” Contemporary Theatre Review 16, no. 4 (2006): 478.
[16] Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin, The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2004).
[17] See Amit Gupta, “India and the IPL: Cricket’s Globalized Empire,” The Round Table 98, no. 104 (2009).