Tumbbad, a Brilliant Movie on Caste Privilege in Indian History
In mid-2022, after finally watching the feted movie Tumbbad, I decided to write a Twitter thread on it. I had watched the film with a friend and both of us loved not just the story and the stunning visuals, but also the brilliant portrayal of caste and caste-based privilege in early 20th-century Maharashtra (the period setting of the film). In my thread I highlighted these aspects of the film, and to my absolute delight, a lot of people found it all relatable. I also got to know from another friend that Tumbbad’s director, Rahi Anil Barve, was nephew of the revolutionary Namdeo Dhasal (co-founder of the Dalit Panthers) and grandson of radical thinker-poet Amar Shaikh.
The Twitter thread was published in article form by a few news websites at that time. I am republishing it here today, after suddenly realizing that I have not yet put up my commentary on Tumbbad on my own Medium.
(What follows is an almost word-to-word reproduction of the Twitter thread, so the structure and writing of this “article” might look a bit off)
The 2018 Tumbbad is among the best and most visually spectacular Indian films. Many of us know that. At the same time — what is less known — it is also one of the best Indian movies ever on caste. [Sorry, major spoilers ahead]
There is much to learn from Satish Deshpande’s work on how the privileged in India have succeeded in “amputating” the full meaning of caste to simply mean ‘lower caste’, thus “leaving the upper castes free to monopolise the ‘general category’ by posing as casteless citizens.” The elite always reduce the gargantuan history of caste to discrimination & reservations. However, it is the persistent power & privilege of so-called upper castes, more than anything, which defines & sustains India’s “caste system”? This needs to become our commonsense. The film Tumbbad is important because it makes these points about privilege ever so subtly but nevertheless relentlessly (within the usual mainstream confines of cinema and ‘culture’ of course), throughout its scintillating 2-hour run.
At the start, we are told thru the Gandhi quote on greed that the film is about greed, entitlement, & power — and within 5 minutes we r shown, thru the powerful lingering of the camera on Sarkaar’s face, that the film is about a Brahman family (& broadly Hindu caste elites). Tumbbad depicts caste privilege broadly, as well as specifically in early twentieth century Maharashtra. To quote from @HowtheWoodMoves’s review: “Of course the Raos are Brahmins,… who would be entitled enough to ignore the injunction of the gods. and consider themselves entitled to a stolen treasure. Vinayak is the sort of guy who assumes he’s got a right to his decaying ancestral pile, and the gold, and by extension India, since he is at the top of the caste pile.”
In debates on reservations, we hav been bombarded for decades with the elite-caste claim that Dalits, Adivasis whose parents have govt jobs r now sufficiently “privileged” — with no acknowledgment of the centuries-long history of inherited privilege the former possess. In Tumbbad we see a vivid portrayal of such generational caste-based privilege and entitlement. The Rao family, despite knowing that their use of the treasure has virtually destroyed the village thru constant, incessant, daily rains and no sunshine, is relentless & unrepentant.
Apart from this more general portrayal, there r many delightful specific displays of the life and thought of caste elites in early 20th c India. Eg: Raghav’s attempts to bribe the white officer & secure an opium permit (ie, get rich thru corruption & collusion with the British). Then the snarky comments against Gandhi & the Congress-led Independence Movement — an absolute staple of many elite caste communities in Maharashtra & India during that time, and apparently a hallowed tradition even today.
There’s also a powerful, & disturbing, portrayal of Dharmashastras-ordained patriarchy (“Brahmanical patriarchy” as Uma Chakravarti described, after the people who made & propagated shastras as divine law) Eg, 1) Vinayak “keeps” a mistress & his wife has to come to terms with it. 2) The men are aghast at “women empowerment” and at the idea of women being independent and making their own decisions. 3) More sinister is the deft portrayal of how the little boy in the family also learns and absorbs the “hidden curriculum” of patriarchy.
Among the strongest undercurrents in the film, — which has so much relevance today — is the elite privilege of committing offences & crimes at will, with little worry about punishment. Like the Raos claiming the forbidden treasure with no accountability towards the village. This scene shows how historically, caste elites have always, when it suited them, flouted the so-called “Hindu” laws which they themselves created & still continue to impose on others, even punishing the latter for flouting (bcz that “hurts” their religious “sentiments”). This differential approach toward crime and punishment based on the perpetrator’s identity (remember “sanskari Brahman” rapists?), has characterized Hindu society for centuries: so it’s ironic when elites today call Dalit et al assertion as an evil sorta “identity politics”.
Tumbbad is a spectacular film on so many levels, and its depiction of caste-privilege is A1. I searched a lot for Indian reviewers who might have analyzed this substantial caste content of the film in their reviews. I found none. So many reviewers emphasized the point that the film is about greed — but missed to say that in the historical Indian (Hindu) context, only a few r even “allowed” to nurture any kind of ambition, let alone of wealth. Maybe I hav missed some good review. But it is unsurprising that these aspects just completely bypassed the radar of elite mainstream film reviewers in India. Not unlike how the crystal clear “Brahman” on the board here bypassed (& was invisibilized by) the subtitles person..
The second half of the movie portrays the organized efforts by elite Hindus in the early 1900s to undermine the liberal, even radical ideas and currents which threatened their not-achieved-thru-”merit” hereditary privilege, & their shastras-facilitated divine authority.. One of the ways in which these efforts expanded was when elites like (the fictional) Vinayak Rao of Tumbbad lazily threw away a little of their humongous wealth toward the conservative (& even violent) Hindu orgs which were coming up then.
Tumbbad’s overt story provides closure: we see that the cycle of greed is broken. But does Tumbbad’s covert political-historical story also provide any closure? It’s hard to tell, since ther r multiple storylines involved. But considering that the film begins with a Gandhi quote that undergirds the whole story, & that the greedy, entitled protagonist named “Vinayak” is the ultimate loser despite having a good run for a while — maybe there’s something to extrapolate there??
