Chapter III

Tamas: Revisiting Darkness

 A filmmaker's life is like a journey with various stopovers. During
this journey, he is constantly looking for subjects that suit his
thought and perspective. I wanted to make serious cinema. Serious
literature fascinates me. While going through various stories
written on Partition, I read Saadat Hasan Manto, who has written
some of the most meaningful stories that bring out the pathos of
Partition. Then I read Pinjar. I was sure I would be able to make it
into a meaningful film. 1

What Chandraprakash Dwivedi claims while commenting upon his Pinjar, perhaps stands
true for Govind Nihalani's Tamas as well. Nihalani too had long desired to film a
'meaningful,' thought provoking and compellingly telling account of what befell the people
ofPunjab in the wake of Partition. He claimed so in an interview:
Having seen the Partition, having seen my family suffer during and
after it and having my most intense memories of violence and fear
from that period, I have always felt very strongly about the issue of
communal tension. However, it was only after I turned director that
I began to toy with the idea of making a film on the Partition -
probably to de-traumatise myself. 2

It was in Bhisham Sahni's award-winning novel by the same title that he visualized his long
cherished dream find a tangible face. In the same interview, when asked about what propelled
him to adapt Tamas for the screen, he said:
The book at once attracted me because it emphasised the tragedy
of the common man who suffered most of all during the event. The
historical events were just the backdrop here. Moreover, the book
did not make any judgements regarding any particular community.
The book was written a full 30 years after the event, it was the
result of reflection rather than a quick emotional response to the
event. Unlike Jhootha Sach it was not a rambling account but was
precise, compact and eminently filmable. 3

Prior to Nihalani' s epic saga, which traced the coming about of the Partition of Punjab, no
other director had dared to capture for the camera, such a subject and in a manner as Tamas
did. A few directors in Bengal had explored the Partition of Bengal. However, the Partition of
Punjab was still a relatively unexplored terrain in the arena of Hindi cinema. Barring some
odd ventures which made a couple of oblique references to the subject, it was only M. S.
Sathyu's Garam Hava (1973) that had dared to deal with the issue of Partition head on.
Garam Hava, which was based on an unpublished short-story by Ismat Chughtai, narrated the
tale of a middle-aged Muslim shoe-merchant, Salim Mirza and his tryst with Partition. Like
Tamas, Garam Hava too opens 'in media res'. The spectators land straight into the heart of
the action. Partition has already happened and Mirza has come to the station to bid farewell to

133
some of hh; relatives who have chosen to quit India for the newly formed state of Pakistan. In
other word's, the tragedy has already struck and what follows in the movie is the gradual
disintegratiDn and displacement of Mirza's immediate family; as we witness all their hopes
and beliefs come crumbling down. Caught amidst a whirlpool of emotions, Mirzaji and his
family are forced to grapple with umpteen dilemmas regarding what course to follow -
whether it would be better to fly off to the newly culled Muslim state of Pakistan, or to
continue being in the city where he was born and has lived most of his life. Thus, by means
of offering a moving account of the predicament of his central MusHm protagonist, Sathyu
captures the grief and perplexity of millions of Hindus and Muslims across the border who
were cast in a similar destiny, when the terrible vivisection struck the nation in August 1947.

However, Si1thyu too endls up dealing with only the aftershocks of the calamity. His story
begins when Partition has happened and many of Mirza's friends and relatives have already
left India for Pakistan. The tale indeed reflects some of the most grueling experiences that
many underwent post the tJ:agedy of Partition. However, how Partition happened never seems
to be the din;\ctor's focus. Jn other words, in Garam Hava too, the coming about of Partition
is clearly cast aside. In fact, this remained the fate of Hindi cinema for very long. It was only
in the mid ei,ghties that Govind Nihalani, a celebrated name from the world 0f 'Indian New
Wave Cinema' offered beJ6ore the masses a five part tele-series called Tamas (1987-88), in
which he poignantly broughlt alive for a generation not only the harrowing experiences of
millions who journeyed. past Partition but also tracked the countdown right up to the tragedy.
Ranjani Maztimdar, in her c:malysis of Tamas, states the same:
The broadcast of the television serial Tamas (Darkness) on Indian
television in 1the late 1980s was a public media event that fused the
politics of nation and memory, revisiting submerged sites of
4
conflict around India's birth as a postcolonial entity.

In other words, one can label Nihalani's Tamas as the first comprehensive filmic experience,
which attempted to capture the Partition of Punjab in all its multifarious dimensions. From
the coming aoout of the event, to its aftermath - Tamas screened it all, for a national tele-
viewing audieiilce. Though one cannot call the series as a standard Hindi film, critics have
5
often pl,aced it in that genn:. In fact, many have even labell(x:l it as an "epic film" on the
Partition of Punjab. Hence, Tamas becomes an important film based on a literary piece that
explicitJiy repr(~sents how Partition entered the domains of ordinary men and women of
Punjab, whose lives were: ripped apart by the event. This is where my interest in Tamas lies.

134
Though Sahni's Tamas had received some ofthe highest literary honours (amongst others,
Tamas received the prestigious Sahitya Akademi Award in 1976) and sketched vividly for
the masses the terrible violence and psychological dislocation unleashed during the Partition
riots, his book never caught mass attention. It continued to reverberate principally in the
academic circles. It was only with Nihalani's screened adaptation of the novel that Tamas
was brought beyond the ambit of mere literary discussions and became a rage, which took the
nation by a storm. Ranjani Mazumdar states so in her commentary on the film:
While the novel was respected as an important book, it never
circulated beyond the literary public in the decade following its
~ publication. In 1987-8, Govind Nihalani, an important figure ofthe
"Indian New Wave," directed and screened the adaptation of the
novel on national television as a five-part tele-series. It was an
immensely popular series ... 6

Despite bitter controversies, whereby the Hindu fundamentalists across the country claimed
the need to ban its broadcast, Tamas made waves and soon became a household name.
Litigations were framed and put up against the series, claiming that "public order would be
disrupted since Tamas was an incitement to violence and communal hate." 7 However, the
screening continued uncensored and Tamas went on to become "one of the biggest events for
Indian television." 8 Yves Thoraval in his compendium states:
Of a superior technical quality, Tamas had a strong emotional
charge and epic flavour. Told like an allegory, the catalogue of the
traumatic events leading to the Partition of the country and its
effects on the common man was a big success with the public of
telespectators (estimated at 38 million or 60 per cent of the
television- owning public ). 9

Thus, unlike the book, which remained confined to simply the supposedly elite circuits,
Nihalani' s venture "rekindled the memory of Partition for a whole generation of people
displaced from their original homeland." 10

It was perhaps a reliving of this entire tragedy and shock of Partition that brought its millions
of viewers to the screen every week, where this grim but relatively silenced period of Indian
national history was raked to the fore. Unlike other cinematic forms from the past, Tamas
depicted the horrors of an event, which caused numerous fractures to the relatively more
tolerant fabric of society that existed not long before the Partition of India. To delineate so
was precisely Nihalani's central endeavour. Nihalani has even claimed in various interviews
that it was this horror and futility of the event that he wished to capture in his movie.

135
 ~r) ;'t.- ~)t~ rr·.c~~
r l:.,'fo>f N<A~P""~~~
Hence, he decided to adapt Salmi's "eminently filmable" 11 tale of Partition for the screen. As
stated earlier, Nihalani himself claimed in an interview that the subject, perspective and
structure of the original narrative were fit for an adaptation to his liking. So agreeable were
the dynamics of the novel perhaps that interestingly Nihalani ended up roping in the veteran
novelist Sahni too in his endeavour. Besides working closely with Nihalani on the script of
the film, Bhisham Sahni himsc~lf played the role of the elderly Hamam Singh, a significant
character ofthe narrative. Within such a context then, a study ofthe process of adaptation of
Tamas in the !Cinematic fonn becomes an interesting case of study, which I propose to
undertake in this chapter. The very idea that the movie is an adaptation of a liter~ narrative
would arouse some obvious departures and I shall ~o~analyze tihese and the
politics behind them, during the@'course of this chapter. .--

Of the many alteJiations that Nihalani brings about, there are two that are crucial to h i s @
narration. The first is a change~ in Nathu's track. In the novel, Nathu simply represents the
helpless everynum, who became a pawn in the hands of selfish leaders, the common man who
bore the ~bnmt of the games played by those who schemed and plotted man against man,
ilil the greed to !Satiate their V1ested interests. Nathu is a poor untouchable skinner, who earns a
living out of hides and skins. Things in his life take an ugly turn when Murad Ali, an agent
who gets him work, orders him to quietly slaughter a pig from the nearby piggery:
''Get one and slaughter it,' Murad Ali had said, 'There are many
j)igs roaming around the nearby piggery, push one into your hut
;.md kill it.' 12

Since Murad Ali gets him his work and Nathu does not want to annoy his agent, he agrees to
do the job:
Nathl!l could not refuse either. How could he? He dealt with Murad
Ali almost every day. Whenever a horse or a cow or a buffalo died
cm)'\vhere in the town, Murad Ali would get it for him to skin. It
1neant giving an eight-anna piece or a rupee to Murad Ali but
lN"athu would get the hide. Besides, Murad Ali was a man of
~~ontacts. There was hardly a person, connected with the Municipal
13
!Committee, wi1th whom he did not have dealings"

Besides, the mioney offered to Nathu is way too lucrative for him to refuse the offer and he
gets tempted:
Nathu had stood with folded hands. The rustling five-rupee note
t!hat had gone: into his pocket had made it impossible for him to
(:>pen his month 14

136
Thus, we see him, become a puppet in the hands of a scheming and powerful man and
unwittingly commit a deed, which changes the complete face of his town. The pig that Nathu
has slaughtered is then thrown in front of the mosque of his town, resulting in a bitter crisis
which only ends in a vicious communal riot.

H,owever, Nathu soon realizes that he has been roped into performing,a terrible crime. This
leavespim utterly bewildered. Shrouded in a sense of absolute shock, we even see him bum
in guilt at numerous points in the novel. He holds himself responsible for the sheer anarchy
that envelops his city. And through this character, Sahni attempts to make a crucial point:
even during the darkest hours of the Partition, there were a number
of non-heroic and fallible people, who continued to abide by the
covenant of a civil society, which always places greater value on
'well-doing' than on religiousfatwas. 15

Nihalani does the same in his adaptation. In the movie, Nihalani too presents a Nathu who:
intuitively knows that he has done wrong by allowing himself, out
of greed and lust, to become the cause of the defilement of a
mosque. He does not regard the communal frenzy that follows the
discovery of a pig's carcass on the steps of the mosque as a
triumph of his Hindu identity, but sees it as a sign of the ruin of his
ethical self. 16

However, the difference that is worth mentioning is that the pangs of grief and guilt that the
Nathu of the movie experiences are convey_ed to be far more.mintense than those in the novel.
tsen

In the novel, there are numerous references to Nathu being concerned about his personal
safety as much as he is about the repercussions of .the misdeed that he has unconsciously
committed. Even the slightest suspicious element fills him up with fear. The intensity of this
terror of being caught is so enormous that he even holds himself back from telling his wife
about his 'dark secret.' We learn of his mortal fright when we see him spout in a soliloquy:
'To tellmy wife can be risky. Suppose, in an unguarded moment,
in a casual conversation, she blurts out what really happened. What
then? No one will spare me. I may be put behind bars. The police
can put me under arrest and take me away. What will happen
then?' 17

Nihalani, on the other hand, does not ever dwell upon this fear in his movie. In the movie, we
do hear Nathu question his wife about the enquiries of his neighbours. He is curious to know
whether people have been discussing about the man who planted the pig in the mosque.
However, there is no mention of the movie's Nathu being worried about going to jail and
policemen. All that the viewers witness him being concerned about is his pregnant wife and

137
unbom child. Other than this he: seems worried only about the fact that he has acted out a
gross blunder, which might result in unnecessary tension in the city. Upon a cursory glance,
such a departure: in the narration of the movie might even appear insignificant, but I believe
that it requires a very serious dellitberation.

One of the reas(:ms why Sahni c:oncentrates upon some of the above stated dialogues could
have been because he needed to highlight the tension in Nathu's mind. In the novel, it is only
such dialogues and soliloquies that foreground the restlessness in Nathu's heart. In the movie,
on the other hand, the director ctould easily manage this by means of Om Puri's brilliant facial
expressions. Om Puri's acting prowess coupled with Nihalani's equally superb camera work,
comfortably substitute those numerous asides and soliloquies which th.e novelist uses to
depict his Nathui's frustration and aggression. In other words, Nihalani did not really need to
introduce: such dHalogues. His lens had already pert:ormed that function. It might be perhaps,
for this very reason that Nihalani skips Nathu' s vruied dialogues, which Sahni, on the other
hand, uses repeatedly in his narrative to convey his c:entral protagonist's anxiety.

However, there !Could be yet another more significant logic behind Nihalani skipping Nathu's
outburst of fear. The level of guilt that Nihalani wanted to convey was perhaps way more
accentuated than what Sahni was trying to. For example, unlike the novel, in the movie, we
keep hearing Naithu spout, "Marme paap kiya hai." 18 In fact, beyond a point, this becomes the
only dialogue that the audiem:e:s hear him utter forcefully. Whenever Nathu sees any new
development in the course of events in the city, he blurts out this very sentence. Interestingly,
in the novel, th(e word 'paap'' i:s never used. Though Sahni too makes his Nathu feel guilty
"'WWIP _ _ ....

about his act, we only hear him say, "'It is all the result of my doing."' 19
-·- . --
It must be remembered that tht~re is a very subtle, yet persistent difference in these above
mentione:d two utterances. Feeling responsible is very different from feeling like a sirmer!
Other than this too, in the novel, we see Nathu drink and enjoy merrily the night after the
arduous slaught~!r:

~Jathu again felt reassured and relaxed and continued strolling

about People had come out to have a good time. As evening fell,
the fun and gaiety increased. And Nathu, elated, went straight to
the stall of me:at kababs and bought eight-annas worth of kababs.
l'hen walk1ing over to the wine-shop, he settled down on a bench
outside. He ate the kababs with zest and then put the glass of
cotmtry wine to his lips.

138
 The street lights went up. The ·odour, of wet earth from· ·the
sprinkling of water blended with the smell of flowers and Nathu
felt inebriated. He did not remember when he had bought a garland
of flowers and put it round his neck. He even did not remember
that after getting up from the wine-shop he had crossed the wide
Raja Bazaar Road and gone into the prostitutes' lane? 0

Whe~ he is sure that no one seems to be putting in any effort to figure out the culprit who lai~
the butchered pig onto the steps of the mosque, we even see him enjoy his hard earned
' ' t.::- * '

money. In the movie too, we see Om Puri (who plays the role ofNathu) drink, but the cause
behind that drinking seems very different. The tense expression on Om Puri' s face, his
nervous fidgeting and the brusque stroking of his hand across his head, very obviously
convey that it is a terribly disturbed person trying to drown his anxiety and worry in alcohol.
In the novel, on the other hand, we see him revelling in his alcohol and kababs till the time he
casts his eye on Murad Ali. Until then he is seen enjoying his evening. It is only when he
spots his manipulator that his intoxication withers away and his fear reverts. In other words,
his high spirits are once again replaced by a massive worry:
It was then that he saw Murad Ali coming towards him. . . . Had
Nathu not been a little high, he would have hidden behind the
projection of some house. But Nathu was in high spirits.2 1

Thus, a close-reading of the two texts very clearly suggests that the director has accentuated
these pangs of consciousness that badly disturb Nathu in the movie. The reason behind such a
departure deserves a serious mention and I shall be elaborating the cause behind this in the
subsequent sections of this chapter.
'

The other more significant and obvious departure is in location of Nathu itself. In the novel,
Nathu and his wife Karmo are shown to be just another couple who are forced to evict when
things tum grim for all the non-Muslims in their city. When all the Hindus of the region flee
to safer destinations, we hear Nathu and Kanno too do the same. Besides, in the novel, after
they have left their abode, the only time we hear of them is in the last chapter. It is there that
we are informed by the omniscient narrator that Nathu too lost his life in the horrible
massacres that had engulfed their regions:
The bystanders peered into the bus to see who it was that was
raising the slogans. On the seat next to that of the driver sat a man,
holding a microphone in his hand. Many did not recognize him,
but some did. Nathu was dead, or he would have recognized him at
once. It was Murad Ali ... 22

139
In the movie, on the other hand, Nathu's wife is sho~m to be expecting their first baby. We
see a pregnant Karn10 very close to her delivery. We are even informed obliquely that Nathu
is very anxiously awaiting the safe arrival of this child. The reason why he is even more
worried is because his wife has perhaps once in the past even had a miscarriage:
Kisi ne toona kiya hai! Aur mere hi paon padne the uspar! Kisika
nasib phoota ho to iski sazaa mere sir kyon? Main kyon bhugtoon?
Kanno ke paer bhaari hain Sachche Paadshah.Ye doosri baar hai.
Is baar bachche ki raksha karo Guru Maharaj _2 3

Other than a pregnant wife, he is also sho~ to have an aged mother, who stays with them. In
b<)th his relations we see an ideal Nathu delivering his duties as best as he can. He appears the
perfect son. We. see him return home and enquire warmly about the well-:being of his mother.
After the concerned mother warns him not to stay outdoors for long in such troubled times,
we see him pacify her, then affectionately lift her and place her on her 'charpoy' and urge her
to sleep comfortably. Even later, all his associates are heard advising him to leave behind his
old mother and escape to a saner refuge. One of his friends eve.n informs him that this i~'

exactly what most of the people are doing to their elderly folks:
Hum koi saari umar ke !iye thodi jaa rahe hain! Raula khatam hoga
to !aut ayeinge .... Nathu zara soch. Teri. vauti ke paer bhaari hain.
Apne bachche ke baare mein to soch. Yahan kuch hua to tu kya kar
lega? Mera kaha maan. Amma ke liye kuch din ka samaan ghar
mein bhar de. Kuch din ke liye wo sabar kar legi. Aur phir ye Ganj
Mandi waale log bhi to apne budhe aur langde-lulon ko peeche
chod kar hi ja rahe hain na? Ye sab jhagda saari umar chaine waala
hai kya? Tu itni phikar kyon karta hai? Amma to apni umar bhog
hi chuki hai. 24

However, we see him not have the heart to do so. Instead, we see him load his mother ctm his
back and then flee. In fact, this went on to become. one of the most memorable scenes,of the
movie as well- Om Puri (who played the role ofNathu) carrying a very old widowed tnother
on his back, walking along side Deepa Sahi (who played the role of the pregnant Kanno),
when the entire vicinity is enveloped in dangerous fires. This clip even featured on tll1e cover
page; of the Penguin edition of the English translation of the novel.. The fatigued ex.pression
on Om Puri's face expresses all that Nihalani wished to convey. With humanity and
sensitivity pouring forth at such a juncture, Nathu most definitely assumes the cast of an
innocent man, experiencing the indignity of being exploited by a selfish and powerful
contractor. While reflecting upon this very episode of Tamas, we even hear K. K, Raina, the
actor, state the same:

140
 ._ I ·Cannot forget the shooting of Tamas. Govind's eye for detail
created an ominous environment and each of his characters was so
well-fleshed that the tragedy of Partition was chillingly conveyed
through their strong performances. Govind is one of the finest
directors we have and he somehow manages to get multi-
dimensional performances from his actors - his acute
understanding of characters and events is phenomenal. I don't
think anyone who has seen Tamas can ever forget the agony of Om
Puri as Nathu as he pulls the hand-cart carrying his pregnant wife
or with his aged mother on his back, running to escape the
violence. To my mind it is one of the most believable, heart-
rending performances on celluloid. 25

Not only does he try and save his mother as long as he can, his sorrow at his mother's death,
while they are on the run, too is rather touching. When his mother dies, we see the sorrow of
a loving son pour forth at every juncture, which achieves its peak when we hear him lament
for not being able to perform the duty of a son well. Nathu feels terribly guilty about the fact
that he does not manage to offer his mother a decent cremation:
Maaf kama amma. Maaf kar dena. Mere kiye ka phal tanne bhi
bhugatna pada. Jangal biya baan mein pura kriya karm bhi nasib
nahin hua. Main, main darbar sahib jaa ke tere waaste ardaas
karaaun. 26

Even as a husband, he functions as the loving partner, who is deeply concerned about his
pregnant wife and unborn child. In this role too, we see him act out no less than a thoroughly
gentle soul. His worry each moment is nothing but a pregnant wife, to whom he appears
completely committed. To highlight this point Nihalani even brings about slight departures in
certain subtleties of the novel. For example, in the novel, from an obvious description, we
clearly learn that Nathu is a regular to the prostitute Motia:
When night fell, he would go to Motia, the prostitute. If she asked
for one rupee, he would pay her five. He would pass the whole
night with her. 27

~~ -----
Nihalani, on the other hand, skips all suc~ai1s. As a result, the impression that the
..

audience gathers about the Nathu of the movie, is that of an ideal man who does no wrong
and lives a life of ordinariness, simplicity and goodness. In fact, so gentle and correct does he
appear all through the movie that we often perceive him as sensitive and extremely humane-
a representation that Sahni never bothers himself with. Sahni just shows his Nathu being used
by a selfish contractor. It is this trick that causes a major riot to erupt. However, once the riot
has broken out, we hear ofNathu too act no different from what many of his like do. There is
nothing exceptional about his sensitivity or humanism. In other words, his presence in the

141
novel principally foregrounds the idea that numerous innocents were made pawns in the
~lower games play(!d by a few s:ellfish people at the helm of affairs. Nihalani's Nathu too is
represented to perform the same function. However, unlike the novel, he does not remain a
rnere metaphor for .a poor pawn. The director instead brings about a major change in his track
and representation; such that the audience's perception of the man takes on a slight deviation.
In the noveL, the la!)t we hear of Nathu is when he flees his town. In the movie, on the other
__
hand, we see him b.ecome the central voice of the,.. entire account. VI!e see him all through the
narrative, including the last scene. In fact, it is Nathu's eye through which Nihalani tries to
unveil the entire tragedy of Partition . I shall elaborate the cause behind this departure.

The novel has an episodic structure, with numerous characters, plots and sub-plots. To adapt
such a narrative for the screen be1c:omes an arduous task because such a narrative structure in
the cinematic form .!Often has the ~endency of falling apart and losing its grip. This happens
because a movie, unjike a novel, is to be viewed under specified conditions. A novel can be
read at leisure, over no set time frame. A film,however, is to be viewed in a stipulated periGd
of time and at a stretich with just one interval. Hence, it becomes crucial for the director to not
let go off his flow <md hold onto the audiences' attention. To accomplish this it becomes
essential for a direct(lr to weave a plot, which has the potential of gripping the audience in its
narrative power. The task become:s yet tougher in the case of a tele--serial. The conditions of
viewing a tele-serial are still more trying from the point of view of direction and the task of
thE~ director of such a series then becomes even more challenging. Unlike a cinema hall,
where there are practically no disturbances, a serial is viewed in an environment that can have
varied distractions. Hence with all such considerations in mind, Nihalani needed to cull out a
very terse narrative, where unity of thought and action was absolutely essential. Otherwise,
the venture had dangers of crumbling into small episodic structures, with no basic continuity.
This could have been [problematic. Even Nihalani shares this concern in one of his interviews:
I also realized that each episode would be viewed six days apart
and while this may be good for distancing the viewer or making
him mC,re objective, the fact still remains that it plays havoc with
the con:tinuity. 28

However, to overcomie this obstacle, Nihalani devised a clever strategy. In his adaptation,
with the central enderi!vour to depict how Partition played havoc with the lives of ordinary
men and women, he n(~eded to present numerous characters and their varied accounts. While
depicting the tales of so many, the plot must have had a tendency to fragment. The case, as

142
stated earlier was·yet more dangerous in case of a tele-series. However, despite numerous
characters and episodes, Nihalani intelligently manages to maintain the grip of his movie.
One way in which he retains this flow is by ensuring continuity "in terms of its emotional
intensity and ideological framework. " 29 All the characters are shown to experience the same
sense of terror, dislocation and disbelief at the unfolding of events. However, over and above
this, Nihalani adopts yet another ingenious strategy to preserve the continuity. He alters two
significant tracks of the series- i.e. that ofNathu and Karmo and Harnam Singh and Banto. I
shall first dwell upon the changes it;t Nathu's track in the movie.

Unlike the Nathu of the novel, who is never seen beyond a particular episode that features
somewhere very early, in the movie, we see the entire story unfold through his eyes. In fact, it
is he who becomes the central thread around whom the narrative is woven. It is Nathu's act
from which the action of the movie springs and through his experiences most of the
significant moments of the action unravel. John W. Hood too, in his analysis of Tamas states:
On this uncomplicated narrative spine Nihalani hangs his
sequences introducing the diverse interest groups along with the
naivete, the confusion, the humanity and the violence that pervade
the playing out of their various roles in the turbulence. 30

Thus, one observes that such a change in Nathu's track helps the director achieve a twin
purpose. Not only does Nathu become a common thread that runs through the whole
narrative, but ends up becoming a strong bonding force between the film and its audience. As
we witness the entire region go up in flames, through Nathu's bewildered eyes, we are forced
to experience the utter shock and dismay that accompanied the Partition of Punjab.

In order to accomplish the latter of the twin goals, Nihalani, very smartly, makes his Nathu
appear as the man next door. Unlike the novel, where there is a mere mention of Nathu's
wife, in the movie he has a wife who is pregnant and a very aged mother. Besides being
deeply embedded in every relation, we see him trapped in the tussle of survival as well. He is
the poor man who has to struggle hard to fend for his family. So realistically has Nihalani
etched out his characterization of Nathu that one is forced to connect to him in one form or
the other. Not only do the sons, husbands and fathers, but every simple, God-fearing person
identify with him in one form or the other. Like Nathu, Kanno's impact on her audience too
is no different. Hence, one observes that right at the outset, the audience associates with these
two central characters and a sympathy chord is immediately struck. In other words, so neatly

143
has Nihalani worked on the background of his Nathu, that every viewer would surely be
driven to empathise with him. And once the chord is struck, whatever Nathu witnesses and
senses becomes an experienee for his spectators as well. He then becomes the everyman
through whose eyes the audienc(: sees the entire coming about of Partition.

Besides this, Nihalani shows his Nathu walk past his native city down to Syedpur, whene too
the fangs of COIIllnunalism have stung. And as Nathu and his wife cross burning vil1ages, the
spectators also t~et to expeflience the scale and the intensity of the destruction that
accompanied Partition. This is a major departure from the novel because unlike the movie, in
the novel we neither see Nathu run past the villages that have been engulfed in the fires of
Partition nor does he ever reach Syedpur.

J-lowever, the need to do so w.ats terribly pressing. Nihalani had to show the unfurling of
~~vents in not just a single city. Since he was constructing a series for the television where the
task was to make his spectators g:et a feel of the colossal nature of the vivisection, simply
showing J.ife in one city would not have sufficed. One can afford to concentrate on just a city .
int a full length featu1'e film. Nihalani, however, was not making a film. He was making an
--==---
epic saga on Partition, through which he intended to foreground the sheer mass, scale and
~~ ---.::::

nature of the tragedy. In fact, in an interview, he even states the same:

From: the film itself you will notice that I am not greatly concerned
with the political mechanism that operated at the higher level of
the Pi,rrtition. What I have tried to highlight is the tragic human
aspeci of the Partition during which the common man (irrespective
of his community) suffered. I wanted to capture my own feelings
of fear at that time and I used my own feelings to guide me
towards the right track. If I recreated the same feelings in the mind
of the >viewer then I think I was successful. 31

Hence, if he had to de·:vise a tele-serlia1l in the form of a 'magnum opus,' it was crucial for him
to enhance the scale of his narrative: as well. To accomplish this, their movement across cities
and showing multiple characters and their sufferings was integral. It was only by means of
such a historically conrtextualized fed of varied representations that one could have culled out
a fer:l of Partition compendiously. The fact is that Partition was not about one or two cities. It
was not about people of a particular class, caste or religion. It was a tide that swallowed all
those who lived throuigh the Punjab of those times. And this idea could only have been
accomplished by enhanicing the framework of his representation. However, why he decided to
construct a series on Pairtition on such an enorinous scale also needs due consideration.

144
For long, Nihalani had wanted to make a movie on Partition. However, to do so, he required
producers and financers, which he claims was not easy. Partition being a sensitive subject,
especially in the politically volatile eighties, did not have very many producers as takers. The
director clearly states this in one of his interviews:
The idea was gestating in my mind from 1981. When I did plan to
make Tamas I could get no sponsor. By then, Doordarshan had
become a force to reckon with because of its vast reach through
sponsored programmes. I put my idea to Mr. S. S. Gill, who was
then secretary in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
and he at once approved the subject for a mini-series. By then Mr.
Bhaskar Ghosh had taken charge at Doordarshan and he too
backed the project. 32

It was only for a mini-series that his proposal got approved. It was this proposed project that
made it imperative for him to broaden the background of his venture. Within this delineated
framework, then, if he had merely shown multitudes of towns succumbing to the wrath of
·Partition, without any central thread, the flow of his narrative would have been badly
sabotaged. It is perhaps to tide past this inherent hitch, that he makes his Nathu move from
one city to another. As Nathu crosses burning towns, the audience also gets a sense of the
scale of the calamity. To add further to this scale, he brings about a similar change in the
central narrative of Harnam Singh as well. I shall be discussing this elaborately through the
ensuing sections of this chapter.

Furthermore, not only does he bring about a change in his representation and treatment of
Nathu and Harnam Singh's stories, he introduces some other sub-plots as well. These
additions, very obviously add to the punch of his central agenda. One needs to remember that
Nihalani was principally interested in showcasing a 'magnum opus' on Partition. In such a
context, showing Partition in all its kaleidoscopic dimensions was absolutely pertinent.
Merely showing the violence that accompanied Partition would not have had the desired
result. Numerous documented sources suggest that Partition had yet another face as well. The
director makes an earnest attempt to present this other perspective of Partition in his venture.

Varied historical, sociological and literary accounts have highlighted that amidst the entire
mayhem, humanity too pervaded in certain selected moments. It is perhaps for this reason
that Nihalani concentrates at length upon this other side of Partition as well. In fact, Alok
Bhalla claims this to be the central focus of his endeavour. In an article, he states:

145
 I suggested that despite some fundamental differences in the
narrative thrust of the novel and the film, the primary force of both
the versions of Tamas lay in the assertion that, even during the
darkest hours of the Partition, there were a number of non-heroic
and fallible people, who continued to abide by the covenant of a
civil society, which always places greater value on 'well-doing'
ithan on religious fa twas. 33

To portray this finer face of humanity that persisted along with the violence that
accompanied the times, Nihalani sensitively films numerous such episodes from the original
narrative. In the: movie, the viewers watch the Muslim Karim Khan warn the Sil<h couple
Harman Singh and his wife B!mto of impending danger. When marauders attack their village,
we see him quietly walk up to the couple and ask them to leave the village. He tells them:
Harnam Singh haalaat bahut naazuk hain. Tum yahan se jaldi nikal
jaao. Apne log to tumhaara kuch nahin bigaadeinge. Lekin gaon
rmein fasaadi ghus aye hain .... Haalaat changge nahin hain. Bahar
l.>e balwai aa rahe hain. Main to kehta hoon tum abhi yahan se nikal
jaao . Waqt bahut kam hai Hamam Singh. Jaao, jaldi jaao.34

One could argue that Karim Khan had been Harman Singh's childhood friend. It was out of
this very old association that he helps his friend escape the wrath of the rioters. However,
later a similar treatment is meted out to them by yet another Muslim lady Rajo, who is not
even known to them. They are total strangers to her and despite religious fanaticism
prevailing in the air, we see he:r rescue them from the danger that looms large over them. In a .
moving moment, when Rajo urges the Sikh couple to leave because times are rather troubled,
the spectators are moved to tente:r-hooks. Along with Harnam Singh and Banto, they too are
certain of the hoirrible fate that awaits the couple, the moment they are released out of the
gates. However,jpst as they are: about to step out, we hear the kind-hearted Rajo utter:
Na jaao ji. Ruk jaao. Laut aao.Tumne hamaare ghar ka darwaaza
khittkhataaya hai. Zaroor koi aas le kar aaye ho. Jo hogi dekhi
jay(egi. Aajaao ..... Badnasib koi aye to use dhakke maar ke baahar
nikiaal doon? 35

Later her husband Ehsan Ali too decides to help them out. Like his wife, just as he is about to
throw them out, he holds himself back:
Hari1a:m Singh thehro. . . . Nigah ka lihaaz hai Harnam Singh.
War,na shehar meilnjo kuch kaafiron ne kiya hai use yaad karke to,
to lahoo ubalne lagta hai. 36

Other than the~ire journey of Harnam Singh and Banto, towards the fag end of the
narrative, we even hear a young man inform the Statistics Babu:

146
 .Main usko phir bola. ImdadJ(han hum sath khel ke bade hue hain.
Tu mainun bhul gaya. Subhe ka waqt hai bauji, Vahe Guru Jhooth
na bulwaaye. Imdad Khan ne pehle mujh pe vaar nahin kiya. 7

In other words, we learn of some 'kafir' being spared by a Muslim because he happens to
have known this man in the past. Even Ehsan Ali is heard of sparing Harnam Singh for
precisely this reason.

All these episodes feature in the novel as well. However, Govind Nihalani's fine direction
and his deft camera work, Balraj Sahni's (who plays the role of Hamam Singh) bewildered
expression and way too soft tone, Om Shivpuri's (who plays the role of Karim Khan)
nervousness and Surekha Sikri's (who plays the role of Rajo) brilliant acting, flesh out the
tension of these scenes even more evocatively. And the audience cannot help but be moved
by Karim Khan, Ehsan Ali and Rajo's genuineness. We see them (all these characters are
represented as Muslims in the movie) literally risk their own lives to guard their non-Muslim
friends from the dangers that await them. In fact, Nihalani does not stop at just these three
episodes of humanity amidst crisis. To reiterate his point more emphatically, he even brings
about a couple of additions and deviations in his filmic adaptation of the novel. To illustrate
this point I shall dwell upon three crucial moments of departure that the movie incorporates.

In one of these above mentioned three references, Nihalani brings about a subtle change in
one of the episodes of the novel itself. Sahni clearly mentions Ehsan Ali's son Ramzan to be
a fanatic. Despite his fundamentalism, we read that he spares Hamam Singh and Banto.
Sahni offers a very obvious reason behind his Ramzan holding himself back. The readers are
. .
informed that Ramzan too, like his father, had dealings with the Sikh gentleman in the past.
We read that he raises his sickle to slaughter Harnam Singh but finally withdraws:
He too had recognized Harnam Singh, for he had tea at his tea-shop a couple
of times. Harnam Singh's beard had turned grey and he looked thinner.
Twice Ramzan raised his pickaxe to strike, but both times he let it fal1. 38

Nihalani, on the other hand, never refers to the fact that Ramzan had known Hamam Singh.
Yet we see the young Muslim spare the Sikh couple. In the movie, Ramzan simply cannot
strike. What stops him is not stated clearly by the director. However, what Nihalani was
trying to do becomes reasonably obvious. Perhaps Nihalani wanted to stress upon the idea
that the same man, who turned bestial during Partition was capable of basic goodness too,
even in these most troubled and vicious of times. John W. Hood states the same:

147
 The fanaticism that can burgeon even out of rational single-
mindedness and the atrocities that give expression to it substantiate
the film's frightening message that centuries of advanced
civilisation and. the rule of law are never really far from chaos,
while dire confusion can be unleashed by the simplest of means.
And yet although Nihalani sees that this warning is unequivocally
enunciated, he is just as careful to provide the balance of reality,
reminding us from time to time that even in the heat of savagery
basic human deeency does indeed survive. 39

Other than this, Nihalani introduces two more episodes that never feature in the novel. While
speaking about these additions lin an interview, the director states:
Ihere were but not because the novel was inadequate" It was
because the two stories by Bhisham Sahni (Sardarni and Zahur
Raksh) fitted into the overall scheme of the film very smoothly.
Both are true stories which had been narrated to the author and
which he had converted into short stories. 40

The first of theste two is the stmy of a Sikh lady defying all religious instigations to help her
Muslim neighbour escape the violent fanaticism of her co-religionists. At a time when things
are acquiring an ugly shape ar1d we hear her Muslim neighbour express a wish to move from
his current predominantly Sikh locality to a Muslim majority area, we hear her claim angrily:
A\llr hamaare moonh par kaalik ponch jaata! Hmm! Tu samajhta
kya hai· apne aap ko? Lawaaris hai? Tera is mohalle mein koi nahin
hai? Hum sab mar gaye hain? Phir kabhi ye baat moonh se nikaali
to mujhse bura l~oil nahin hoga, samjhe! Chal! Ja! 41

What she says do not remain mer•e words because soon after her bold claim,, we see her annoy
her Sikh 'brothers' so as to help the Muslim teacher move to safer grounds. With the sword of
her 'Vahe Guruji' in hand, when one of the angry Sikh rioters tries to obstruct her way and
challenge her, she retaiiates . Wilen her so called Sikh brother questions her about why she is
helping an enemy, she retorts stemly, "Ye mera bhai lagta hai!"42

Other than this touching account, there is yet another episode where we see yet another
Muslim teacher Ziahur Baksh strive to retain his secular principles right till the end. The
viewers see him ai> a learned man, who hopes to translate Kalidas's Shakuntala into Urdu.
The first we see him is when he once bumps into the Hindu Master Dev Vrat on the streets.
He warmly greets his Hindu colleague and innocently informs him ofhis·effort:
Aaditab Dev Vrat! ... Bhai aakhree drish reb gaya hai. Ab Kalidas
ke ti~haiul ki bar:aabari to ~ar nahin sak~a. Lekin mer~ t~j~la
padhoge to khud h1 kahoge lo Shakuntala kt zubaan Urdm th1.. ·

148
The cold response of Master Dev Vratonly leaves him a bit startled but-the audiences are
clearly informed of his religious leanings. However, the· most touching moment is when
Hindu fanatics barge into his house and set all his books on fire. Minutes before the books are
torched, Nihalani makes us view Urdu and Sanskrit books lying together on his shelf. It is
such scenes of the movie that put across a very strong message, where the viewers are offered
hints of the syncretism that the director aspires to portray. And once our sympathies are struck
with this Muslim teacher, horror too strikes the hardest. When the Hindu mobsters set his
books ablaze, the audience watches not just Urdu texts but even Kalidas bum. Besides the
final moment of pathos is struck when ironically the spectators witness this Muslim plead
with the members of the mob to not bum his most prized possessions, his books:
Dekhiye mairi teacher Zahur Baksh hoon. Aap sab mujhe
pehchaante hain .... Meri kitaabon ko chod dijiye. Kitaabein chod
dijiye. Dekhiye ye meri ... poonji hai. ... Ye dekho Pant,
Mahadevi ki kavitaein, ye Premchand ke upanyaas. Ye kya kar
rahe hain aap? Ye kitabein kyon jala rahein hain? Nagendra ko bhi
pehchaanta hoon. Ye rahi unki rachnayein. Ye sab kya ho gaya?! 44

Watching a Muslim man not withdraw in horror to protect his life but to mourn over his lost
text..;.books only leaves the spectators touched and Nihalani's point well made.
j

In other words, through such episodes that feature periodically in his narrative, Nihalani
makes his call crystal clear. As he intersperses such episodes of humanism with those of
communal frenzy, the viewers know exactly what the director attempts to remind them!

This is an observation that Alok Bhalla too makes in his comparative analysis of the movie
and the novel. Bhalla states:
The novel is bleak, and promises neither forgiveness nor
redemption. The film, however, ends with Harrtam Singh's
instinctive resistance to barbarism. . .. Instead of being every man
who suffers, he becomes an example of what any man ought to do
and be. 45

Other than these, there is yet another significant transformation that Nihalani builds upon in
his narrative. In the novel, we merely witness the haggard and harassed Hamam Singh and
Banto reach the rescue camp. Hamam Singh's pathetic statement of loss and the Statistics
Babu's indifferent registration of figures only heighten the irony and tragedy of the situation.
The readers only look upon this unfortunate couple as many of those poor suffering masses, ·
whose lives were ripped apart during Partition.

149
However, unlike ~the novel, where we only feel sorry for the poor old couple, the director ends
up portraying son1ething entirely different. In the movie, Harnam Singh becomes a symbol of
moral fortitude. Ev,en in the face of utter loss and crisis, the viewers never see him lose his
touch of humanity. Whether it is the episodes where both Rajo and Ehsan Ali urge him to
leave their house because their presence would cause them unnecessary botheration or in the
scene where Ramzan raises his sickle to kill him, we see a quiet complacence on his face.
With soft expressions coupled with a saint like flowing beard and tender child like dialogue
delivery, the vete:ran writer Bhisham Sahni (who played the role of Harnam Singh in the
movie) accomplishes to execute a much needed humanism with tremendous ease. Thus, one
observes that it is tt.his fine charact!erization and portrayal of Harnam Singh that lends a further
depth to the direc:tor's perspective and ideological framework. We even witness Hamam
Singh lose his daughter Jasbir to honour killings. Despite all these harrowing experiences, he
retains his sense of morality. And his sense of goodness is finally claimed in the last scenes of
the movie, where h:e is shown to literally adopt Nathu's wife as his own daughter. Irrespective
(Jf her lower caste <md different rel1igion, we see only one element emerge supreme in the eyes
tllfthis God's,man (Hari Nam) the eall of humanity. Thus, it is in the culmination of the movie
that we ultimately and forcefully see the humane face of society resonate. This was what
\
Nihalani too was c(mtrally striving to portray; perhaps ~even more forcefully than the novelist.
He was trying to r)roject how humanity survived amidst all odds and abberations. Ranjani
Majumdar too in her analysis of the movie states the same:
This essentially humanist quality prevails throughout the novel, ...
and is most explicitly brought out at the end of the series when
birth follows death as symbols of the eternal dynamics of time and
realii:y. 46

Even Bhisham Sahri.i claims to havt: come round to beli·eving in such a stance retrospectively.
Alok Bhalla voices fSahni's view 1regarding the same in one of his articles:
Bhisham Sahni said that when he played the role of Hamam Snngh
in th~! film, he felt such deep empathy for him that he forgot the
pathos with which 1the character is depicted in the novel. He added
that the moral fortitude of Harnam Singh in the film was perhaps a
result. of his own increasing confidence in the ability of the
coun(ry's composite ethos to withstand new separatist threats and,
at the. same time, to neach out to its neighbours in order to establish
a new lease of peace iin the region. 47

Thus one could stat1.~ that the basic viewpoint of both Nihalani and Sahni were reasonably
similar and perhaps it is such a synchronicity that adds to the success of this filmic adaptation

150
of Tamas. Besides, if such conceptions of the director and his team·are to be believed, all the
above described departures very logically serve an end. In fact, one can then even state that it
could be in an endeavour to heighten the flavour of the above referred belief that Nihalani
converges the sub-plots ofNathu and Karmo with that ofHarnatn Singh and Banto. One must
remember that in the novel, these four never meet. Both are made to suffer independently in
their own defined territories. However, with these two narratives merging, the director
manages to cull out a situation where he gets an opportunity to reiterate his central point. It is
with the extension of Nathu' s track and its coalescence with the track of Harnam Singh that
Nihalani gets to project a face of humanity prevailing even amidst a massive crisis.

This is exactly where Nihalani's narrative leaves its indelible mark. Unlike the simplistic
novel written in the classic realist tradition, Nihalani transforms it into a much more complex
text, which sparks off numerous complicated debates around the issues of violence,
civilization and obviously Partition.
'•

There is yet another significant difference that Nihalani repeatedly incorporates in his
adaptation of Sahni's masterpiece. While deliberating upon political positions as well, one
gets a feeling that he adopts a very favourable view of the Communists. In fact, many have
often accused Tamas of being nothing more than an obvious Communist propaganda.
Nihalani, on the other hand, adopts a slightly different approach. I shall elaborate this idea by
dwelling upon the representation of each of the political parties in both the novel and the film.
In the novel, Sahni offers an insight into the weakening hold of the Congress.· We read of
corruption creeping into the working ofthe party. We also hear of most ofthe Congress party
workers becoming skeptical about the Gandhian ideology.

A certain Mehtaji (a Nehru-like leader) is heard of running a parallel insurance business

along with his party work. There are obvious hints of Mehtaji ensuring party seats for men
who oblige him. Thus, we see him dole out seats on the basis of means,, and not merit:
Mehta squirmed. He had spent sixteen years of his life in jail and
was the President of the District Congress Committee. He was
always dressed in spotless white khadi. To level such an accusation
was unmannerly, to say the least. But a rumour had been gaining
ground that he was about to secure a fifty-thousand-rupee
insurance policy from Sethi, a contractor, in lieu of which, Mehta
would help him secure the Congress ticket for the next General
Elections. 48

151
In fact, the nov,el-even ,hints at some of Bakshiji's weaknesses. One must remember that like
Mehtaji is il metaphoric reflection of Nehru, Bakshiji almost represents Mahatma Gandhi.
Though Bakshiji (who is the metaphoric representation of Gandhi in the movie) is basically
presented as committed 1to the principles of his party, we see him too in compromising
situations, once in a whHe. When he orders his fellow men to switch off the lamp and avoid
wastilng the oil that he pays out of his personal property, we hear Shankar, another member of
the District <2ongress Committee, pull his leg. \Vhen Bakshiji says:
'Why, do you want to look at my face or Mehtaji's?' Bakshi said,
'I cannot afford to waste oil. The lamp does not be:long to the
Congress Committee, it is my personal property. Get the oil
sanctioned by the Congress Committee and I shall keep the lamp
burning day <md night. ' 49

Shankar is immediately ht::ard saying:

At this Shankar, who was standing behind Kashmiri Lal,
commented in a low voice, 'When no sanction is needed for your
cigarettes, why should one: be required for kerosene oil?'
Bakshiji had heard Shankar but swallowed the bitter pill. It was
demeaning to talk to such 'loafers' .50

A little later too, when the party workers are attacked by soine unknown men,. while they are
cleaning the gutters in Imam Din Mohalla., we hear a worried! Bakshiji cry:
'There is something wrong somewhere. Let's get away from here,'
said Bakshiji, 'it was a mistake to have come here in the first place.
'Where is Des RaJ who had been so insistent that we should come
to this locality?' 5

The same Bakshiji is seen to be the first one to flee for his safety when a minor incident of
rioting breaks out in the city. While returning from a meeting at the Deputy Commissioner's
house, a little: away from the city, news of some attacks breaks out. All the men are terrified
and we see them hurry back home to preserve their safety. At this critical juncture, we see
Bakshiji leav(: behind his ft:How men, climb a tonga with Meltltaji and escape:
As the tonga drove past Hayat Baksh he remarked jokingly,
'Running away, Bakshi? The karars that you are! You first ste>ke
the fires and then run away!' ...
Seeing the Sardarji coming at some distance, Hayat Baksh
r·emarke<il, 'Bakshiji has decamped! Such is the character of these
people! 52

Though soon ,after we s·ee him realise his mistake and feel guilty about his cowardly act, his
hypocrisy is bi.adly exposed nonetheless. We see him curse himself for his rashness:

152
 . Bakshiji felt uneasy sitting in the tonga. It had ·been a bad decision
getting into it. He felt irritated, as much with Mehta as with
himself. 'Why do I allow myself to be persuaded by fellows like
· Mehta. The members of the deputation had all come together. That
is how we should have gone back too.' Nevertheless there was
nothing much he could do about it now. 53 ·

However, the deed is already done and his disgraceful act in times of a real crisis surely
blemishes his reputation. After numerous such incidents that keep. happeni~g. intermittently
through the novel, he. definitely does not command much of his readers' awe and respect.

Thus upon a close reading of the text, we see Bakshiji emerge as a confused weakling, getting
flustered by all the experiences around him and not managing to impress anyone with his
beliefs. Neither do we see him convince the DC to impose curfew, nor does he manage to
stand for his principles at critical junctures. Even in the last crucial situation, it is Mehtaji
who is shown to take over. And Mehtaji's decision is not one bit becoming of a leader who
pledges loyal service to his nation:
Sitting down in the tonga, Bakshi had said, 'Let us ask them if
anyone wants a lift,' to which Mehta's reply had been categorical.
.'No one need be asked. How many can you accommodate? Let us
get away from here as soon as possible. You can't ask one and not. ,.
ask the other. We can even take a tum to the left and get out of
sight. ' 54 . . ..

Later too we see him failing to enthuse belief in his own party workers about the power of the
party principles of the Congress. Though he offers explanations to his yo'unger colleagues
about the efficacy of Gandhi's non-violence, all his arguments are termed
"oversentimental"55 by those very colleagues. In fact, not only do his arguments fail to
convince his fellow men, the readers are not impressed either. Instead, it is Kashmiri Lal's
emphatically stated doubts that everyone is forced to carry home with them. When Bakshiji
urges the disillusioned crowd to not lose trust and hope in the Congress ideology and tries to
explain to them the true ethics of non violence, Kashmiri Lal says:
'Listen,' Bakshij i said. 'You yourself should not indulge in
violence. That is number one. You should persuade the fellow to
desist from using violence. That is number two. And if he does not
listen, fight him tooth and nail. That is number three.' 56 ·

The readers have not even keenly registered what he has said, when Kashmiri Lal attacks
Bakshiji's stand yet more bitingly. Kashmiri Lal, who is irritated by these apparently logical
principles of Gandhi, pronounces them as fake and empty words that only sound impressive:

153
 JBut Kashmiri ,..lLal
7
was still arguing: 'But with what weapons? With
the charkha?'·'·

At this juncture, the spectators watch Bakshiji not being able to utter anything further. Thus,
if one observes finely, one feels that in the novel, both Mehtaji and Bakshiji are not cast in a
very admirable light. They Jilever appear the dynamic leaders whose words charged with
wisdom and passion have the potential to inspire or infuse the masses with faith in their core
values. Instead, ;it forces the r1eaders to ridicule the foolishness of these men, who only dream
romantic but are otherwise spineless. However, their case in the movie is very different.

Nihalani also striv·es to present a comprehensive picture of the Congress party but does not
pass any obviously biting attad:B against it. However, it must be remembered that neither is it
unnecessarily gloiri:fied, nor ar{: its flaws camouflaged. In the movie too, the director offers an
insight into the weakening hold of the Congress ideology. The disillusionment that was
setting in amongi;t the Congress party workers as Independence and Partition drew close is
brilliantly captured by Nihalani' s deft camera work as well, but with a subtle difference.

In the first place, nn the movie, unlike the novel, Mehtaji is not likened to Nehru. In the novel,
when we hear ofM{:htaji for the first time, we hear Aziz, another Congress worker, announce,
"'From a distance you look every inch a leader, Mehtaji."' 58 Mehtaji is thril1ed tG hear this
and we hear him ciaim with a bl<~ated ego:
Putting his hand on. Aziz's shoulder, he said, 'The other day I was
stari:ding at the ta:xi stand when I overheard someone ask another
person, "Is that J:awaharlal Nehru standing there?"' Giving a little
tilt to the Gandhi cap on his head, he added, 'Many people make
this 'mistake. ' 59 ·

Nihalani, on the other hand, brings about a change in this sequence. Here, when a
60
Congressman similarly informs l1.1ehtaji that "Door se aap sachmuch leader lagte hain," we
hear Mehtaji announce:
Bhai main us din motor ke adde par khada tha. To ek aadmi doosre
se p(>ochne laga. Kyon bhai wo Rajendra Babu khade hain kya?
61
Bahli!t se logon ko mugaalata ho jaata hai.

Thus one observes that though the movie's Mehtaji too is presented as selfish and chicken-
ht~arted, in one clealt sweep, Niha:lani does away with the controversy. Representing a Nehru
like figure in a contemptuous fashion could have been dangerous for a tele-series on the
official national netv..vork, while the: Congress was still in office!

154
Even the representation of Bakshiji in the movie, .is very different from that in the novel. In
the movie, Bakshiji is never presented as fickle and meek as he is in the novel. All the
references listed above, where Bakshij i' s worthiness and strength can be doubted, are omitted
by NihalanL In fact, throughout the movie we see an exasperated Bakshiji strive hard to
restore normalcy into the otherwise vulnerable state of affairs. We admire him when he tries
his best to resolve the petty conflicts amongst his fellow Congressmen. In fact, from the
behaviour of the other members of the Congress Committee towards Bakshiji, he almost
comes across as the fatherly figure in the narrative. It becomes rather obvious that he
commands tremendous respect and a valuable say amongst them all. When Bakshiji orders
any one of them to say or do things in a particular manner, we see each one of them abide by
his word. At the outset, when the 'taameeri kaam' seems to be working, we see this elderly
man feel thrilled with a childlike innocence. This innocence ironically stands yet more
pronounced when minutes later a stone comes flying his way. Our respect for the man goes
another decibel up when we see him argue ardently with the Deputy Commissioner Richard
to impose a curfew and save the town from getting trapped in an imminent disaster.

Interestingly, at this meeting at the DC's house, it is basically Bakshiji's arguments that
appear most vehemently put. The resigned tone in which he says, "Aapke under mein sab
kuch hai sahib, agar aap kama chaahein to," 62 leaves us feeling yet sadder for the poor man.
In fact, at this moment, he almost appears a 'saint caught amidst sinners.'

The concern and fear in his tone, when all his arguments go unheeded lends a further respect
for this character. He almost appears a wise old man who prophesizes what the plight of the
city undoubtedly would be, "Lagta hai shehar pe cheelein udengi. Aasaar bahut bure hain. " 63
Nihalani also carefully omits all those scenes where one could have doubted Bakshiji's
integrity. While all members of the 'prabhaat pheri' are shown to smoke, Bakshiji does not.
This, in fact, is a sharp contrast to the novel. In the novel, not only does Bakshiji smoke, but
as elaborated earlier, also smokes on the account of the party! Similarly there are no
references to any fellow worker casting aspersions on Bakshiji's dignity. In fact, we see all
the other men hold him in very high esteem. All his interventions are well received and
acknowledged. Even toward.s the end, Nihalani shows Bakshiji answer back a relatively
disillusioned Congress worker, Kashmiri Lal, rather comprehensively and convincingly:

155
 Suno, tum•khud hinsa mat karo. Hinsa kame waale ko samjhaao.
Agar i,sarnjhaane ka mauka hai to. Aur agar wo nahin maanta to dat
kar m~aabla karo. 64

At this juncture toe•, we never see this Kashmiri Lal retort back sarcastically, as his
counterpart in the novel does (as diseussed in the earlier section of this chapter). As a result,
while Bakshiji utters his stand, the audience is left further touched by his concern,
commitment and far-sightedness.

Such representations coupled with A. K. Hangal's extraordinary acting skills successfully end
up painting a very fine portrait of Bakshiji. The actor Hangal with his way too gentle
expressions and benig~n body language, go a long way in adding a further dash of humanism
and !Charm to the chara.cter ofBakshi;ji. Besides, one can even say that Nihalani's choice of A.
K. Hangal to play the role of Bakshiji is a very inteHigent casting decision. I shall elaborate
this idea on the basis of an argument proposed by Robert Starn in his seminal thesis on filmic
adaptation ofliterary teKts. While theorising adaptation, Starn states:
While li,terary charac~ers are like ghastly, hologrammatic entities
cued by the text and J!Jrojected (and introjected) by readers, filmic
characters are at once projected and embodied. Our projections
spread tl,temselves, as it were, not over the virtualities of the verbal
text but rather "over" the actually existing body and performance
of the actor, which cue~s and receives and resists our projections ....
Adaptatii)ns of novels thus provoke a tension between the
characters as constructed and projected during our reading, and the
embodied actors/charactt~rs witnessed on screen. Our spectatorial
impressicms arre further shaped by what we already know about the
actor's p\!rformances, <md even, in the case of stars, of what we
know about their three-dimensional lives, their sexual
relationsl{jps, and their opinions and feelings are channelled by the
mass m~dia, all of which feed into the reception of the
performar)ce. 65

In other words, according to Starn evety actor brings with him a baggage of sensibility, which
is often based on his prior on-screen image. This, at least initially, does have a strong impact
on the perception of a particular charac:ter, which that actor plays. Thus, we see Hangal with
his previous performances bring to his character of Bakshiji a preconceived cushion of
respect. His age, manneiisms and legacy translate onto the screen and arouse even more
evocatively the impression of a Gandhi, who seems to hold strongly to all his beliefs and
principl1es despite the entire phantasmagoria. One must remember that the veteran actor
Hangal had already played umpteen character roles, where the audiences had responded 1to
him as the sweet old man, with simple aspirations and modest concerns. No one can ever

156
 forget one of his most cherished roles as the blind old Imam Chacha in Sholay (1975). Such
impressions of an actor linger in the audiences' memories and often have an impact on the
reception of the role that the actor plays in his later ventures. This, coupled with Nihalani's
sensitively chalked out characterization ofBakshiji, makes us respect him still further.

Like the novel, in the movie too, we do witness Bakshiji appear helpless, but at no point does
the director make a mockery of his beliefs. He makes his Bakshiji utter his stance but he does
not pass an obvious value judgement against it. In fact, by removing Kashmiri Lal's retort,
Nihalani makes Bakshiji's dialogues appear as a forcefully put argument, which can then be
interpreted either ways by his viewers.

Besides, this is precisely where the accomplishment ofNihalani lies. He manages to bring in
the politics of Indian nationalism into the hearths and homes of the average Indian. He lucidly
lays bare before the people the state of affairs and then forces them to engage with these
issues, which according to many are of pertinent concern even years after the tragedy of
Partition had struck. I shall elaborate this idea at length in the later sections of this chapter. ~~
,/1 IJ d
~ ~ ~17
•1 ~ ftVJ·+r' uvvb-e ~ .
The reason why Nihalani perhaps deletes all refen~iYces poiht~t~1t~e~s at Bakshiji's integrity J'-
is obvious. One, of course, is the need to
_.._ -
tighten
-
his Qlot. Unlike a novel, which can run into
- ;;;;;;:=------

endless pages, a movie or even a tele-serial is to be compressed within a stipulated time

frame. Unending debates around the same matter only weaken the grip of the narrative in the
cinematic medium. Nihalani perhaps realizes this limitation of the medium and hence might
have skimmed them aside. However, it would be unfair to state that Nihalani escapes
confronting the failings and fissures of the Congress of that period completely. He merely
abstains from unnecessarily dwelling upon them or passing obvious value judgements against
them. Through two or three effective scenes he had already highlighted the fissures sprouting
. J . .
in the Congress party. In such a case the inclusion of these above mentioned arguments
including the ones which elaborate details of the personal tiffs of different party workers (that
feature in the novel), would only have reiterated what Nihalani had already successfully
proposed, in the first few frames of the District Congress Committee itself. The weakening
forms of the Congress ideology had already been emphatically portrayed. In other words, the
reason behind skimming aside all the details referred above could perhaps have been the need
to avoid repetition and present before his viewers a. case, without passing any judgement in
all rashness.

157
Other than thi~se departures in the representation of some significant characters, Niha:lani also
incorporates a couple of other minor changes in his narrative. Not only do we see him club
episodes pres(~nting the workings of the Congress party, some of the characters too are
compressed into one to avoid unnecessary ramblings. For example, in the novel, we read of a
Gosainji, who has planned the 'taameeri' service in Imam Din Mohalla, work with his
colleagues during the 'prabhaat pheris.' Though we never read of him speak a single line in
the novel, we are informed by the omniscient narrator that he: is physically present and is
working with hi;~ associates during the cleaning of the locality. In the movie, on the other
hand, Nihalani skips the charaeter of Gosainji.. The spectators hear that a certain Gosainji had
planned the 'taartteeri kaam,' but never see him physically present. One of the very obvious
reasons behind su~eh a departure is that while a novel can afford numerous such characters, a
movie cannot afford too many. It only leads to confusions and congestions of frames. I1t is
perhaps due to the~;e very logics that Nihalani also skips some other characters like Hakimji,
the Christian missicmary and the headmaster, who feature later in Sahni's narrative.

Not only does Nihalarti omit characters, he even brings about minor changes in the dialogues
uttered by some of has characters. Like in the novel, when Mehtaji refuses to clean the drains,
Shankar offers to do it on his behalf: In the movie, it is Sher Khan who makes this offer t0
Mehtaji. One very obvious reason b(!hind this exchange of dialogue could be that the Sher
Khan of the movie wouid otherwist~ have not had even a single dialogue in the movie. fn the
novd too, we are merdy informed that Sher Khan, in whose house all the tools are stored, is
an a(~tive member of tl~e District Congress Committee. He is even heard working during the
'taameeri kaam,' but like Gosainji, the novelist never makes him utter a single dialogue. His
presence though is crucial to the narrative whereby the writer tries to show that the Congress
was an equal representative of the MHslims as it was of the Hindus and Sikhs. Even in the
movie, his presence has a significant purpose. While Nihalani tries to foreground the fact that
the Congress was not a party of only Hindus, he needed characters like Sher Khan and Aziz.
Interestingly, the novel has a Hakimji too. However, due to constraints of fran1es, as
discuss(Cd above, Nihalani makes do with just two Muslim members of the Congress. These
then illustrate the idea thllt the Congress represented not just the members of a particular
religion but represented aH Inclians, ,irrespective of religion. Bakshiji is heard repeating this
stance a number of times in the movie. Early in the movie itself, when he and his men are
forbidden by the members of the League:, from entering the lane leading to the Imam Din
Mohalla, where they intend tmdertaking community works, we hear Bakshiji announce:

158
 Congress sabki jamait hai, ·Hayat Sahib. Hinduon ki,- Sikhon ki,
Musalmaanon ki. Hayat sahib, pehle aap bhi to hamaare saath hi
'the. 66 , -

And since Nihalani uses a Sher Khan, he makes him utter a dialogue as well. However, yet
· another more valid reason could perhaps be that such a reference heightens the harmonious
fabric of the Congress party even more emphatically. When the viewers watch a Muslim
make an offer of assist~ce to his Hindu colleague, the belief that the Congress was indeed a
secular party is foregrounded. This is precisely what Nihalani wanted to portray and through
such transformations he manages to successfully put across his point Besides the audience
too is forced to consciously or unconsciously assimilate the idea that the Hindus and Muslims
till very close to Partition, were not essentially each other's hated enemies. This, in fact, is an
idea that even the novelist buys passionately. In a personal interview with Alok Bhalla, Sahni
is even heard reinforcing this point:
certain things were just taken for granted. Differences in faith were
taken for granted. Differences in customs, ways of life, eating
habits, and so on, were taken for granted. This helped in the
process of accommodating one another. There was cordiality
between people of different faiths. Therefore, there was no reason
why people should not have learnt to live as good neighbours. So I
think communal antagonism was a development that took place in
the British period. The British were convinced of the differences
between the Hindus and Muslims. This also suited them, as their
own numerical strength was small. They had come and established
their empire thfough all sorts of means. Making use of differences
between people within a family, and so on, was a part of their
game and they succeeded. 67

Apart from the above mentioned departures, there are other such changes too that feature
regularly in the movie. Though they do not have a very significant or obvious bearing on the
punch and ethos of the narrative, they do subtly leave their mark. One can label these as
· minor departures, which most of the times spring from the constraints of the medium. There
/
are so many such minor changes that discussing each at length would be beyond the scope of
my thesis. Therefore, I shall henceforth only dwell upon those alterations that have a very
crucial influence on the feel and flow of the two narratives.

One of these more significant departures is that Nihalani has skipped numerous references of
. the novel which had the potential of being perceived as controversial. I shall list some of
these at length.

159
At a crucial j1w1cture in the novel, when the members of the League try to stop the members
of the 'prablllaat pheri' from continuing with their programme, Bakshiji intervenes. He
professes that ~he work oJf the Congress should not be disrupted as it is working for the
benefit of all .Indians; irrespeetive of their religious identities. He clearly emphasizes that the
Congress is not a representative of just the Hindus. Pointing at Aziz and Hakimji, Bakshiji
tries to drive home the point that Muslims working with them too are significant members of
the Congress. The: members of the League headed by Hayat Baksh are still not appeased.
They only label such argmm:nt:s ofBakshiji as defunct and one ofthem utters viciously:
'Aziz and Hakim are the dogs of the Hindus. We do not hate
}-Iindus, but we detest their dogs? 68

Upon hearing tll.is, Bakshiji tries to convince them and asks, "Is Maulana Azad a Hindu or a
Muslim?" 69 Anid we hear a League member respond to Bakshiji's argument thus:
'l\.1aulana Azad is the biggest dog of the Hindus who goes wagging
his tail before you.' 70

However,. no such li>iting attack features in the movie. Thus, one can daim that Nihalani
consciously stayi) clear of all Jreferences which could have invited trouble . Earlier he avoids
painting leaders .like Nehru and Gandhi in a poor colour. Now we see him do the same to
Maulana Azad. The obvious cause behind such a stand is that it would certainly have cast
aspersions on the cTedibility of his work. It can indeed become troublesome to make such
statements against! prominent men, who are considered national leaders in a country's history.
The case becomes1 even more problematic in the case of a tele-serial. Since a tele-series is to
be viewed by meinbers of no specific caste, region, religion, etc., sentiments can often be
hurt if such slurs are cast upon men of respectability and celebrated national status.

Nihalani's Tamas ;md for that matter every movie and, more so, every tele-serial does not
have a very specified reach. It is viewed by people across all genders, spaces, locations,
regions, religions, castes, etc. In :mch a scenario passing obviously crude comments can
evoke huge contro'versies. Nihalani was treading even more sensitive grounds. He was
filming Tamas for~ tdevision audience, which is even more scattered and less specified in

--
it~ reach. Hence, it Bmst have been utterly essential for him to avoid rousing furors. In fact,
. .
Nihalani himself claims this in one of his interviews, where he states:
Moreover, I did not want to make the serial controversial- which it
did bJ:come in spit1e: of my best efforts and that, too, for reasons
which wer:e entirely trivial. 71

160
I shall subsequently discuss the cause of the bitter controversy that this serial got trapped in.
Before that I wish to delineate some more changes, which the director clearly incorporates to
avoid fierce attacks against an effort, which many claimed was purely objective:
The telling of national history that is not bathed in glory is
discomfiting to many; indeed, the facts of history are often difficult
to live with, particularly where communal blame and responsibility
are involved. Nihalani's superb achievement with Tamas lies in the
fact that he has created a brilliant account of recent human history
that sees guilt as being as universal as innocence and people as
being simply human, irrespective of the distinctions with which
they might try to dress themselves. 72

Another change is the very obvious omission of avoiding depicting violence in all its grim
forms on screen. The novel has some very ugly references to the same. Bhisham Sahni offers
clear descriptions of killings, loot, murders, rapes, etc. We hear the 'mujahids' share their
tales of terror and loot boisterously. We read one of them claim:
'When we got into the lane, the karars began to run this way and
that way. A Hindu girl went up to the roof of her house. As soon as
we saw her, we ran after her. There were nearly ten of us. She was
trying to jump ·over the low wall on the roof to go over to the
adjoining house when she fell into our hands. Nabi, Lalu, Mira,
Murtaza all had a go at her one by one.'... ·
'By God it is true, every word of it. When my turn came there was
no sound from her; she wouldn't move. I looked at her; she was
dead. I had been doing it to a dead body,' he laughed a hollow kind
oflaughter, and turning his face to one side, spat on the floor. 73

Yet another of these men describes something equally horrid and cruel.
'It is all a matter of chance,' he was saying. 'We caught hold of a
bagri woman in a lane. My hand was working so well, I would
chop off a head at one go. The woman began crying and begging:
"Don't kill me," she said, "All seven of you can have me as your
keep."'
'Then?'
'Then what? Aziza plun~ed his dagger into her bosom and she was
finished there and then.' 4

Before this episode too, we hear of a Muslim group torture, humiliate and convert the young
Sikh Iqbal Singh. Such acts of forced conversions were rampant during those times. After
hitting him badly, these young Muslim men scare their newly formed and found enemy into
conversion. We see them force Iqbal Singh to read the 'kalma.' Even after the poor Sikh lad
has agreed to their command, they insult him as badly as they can:

161
 H.ostility . and !hatred cannot tum into sympathy and love so
slitddenly, they 1can only tum into crude banter. Since they could
not physicaHy hit him, they could at least make him the butt of
thleit vulgar jokes. 75

They bully and torture him all tihe way to their village. They literally drag Iqbal Singh to their
village, where they intend performing the formal conversion ceremony. Before the
circumcision ceremony is done:, v,re see them force "a big piece of raw meat, dripping with
76
blood," into his mouth and make the frightened man recite the 'kalma' once again. Equally
horrifying is the d.escription wherie his hair and beard are cut so as to make him look like a
Muslim. Sahni. etches this desctiption so poignantly that one is left gripped in shock and
anger at the sheer barbarity of the episode. This act is not as obviously violent as murder or
rape, but is perhap,s equally horrifying. The writer manages to capture the violence of this
episode in his brutal descriptions of Iqbal Singh's expressions. When his hair is being
trimmed, Sahni writes:
Iqbal Singh's shrivdled face, despite his frightened eyes, actually
begaf,t to look like that of a Muslim. 77

Later, when the piec1e of meat is brusquely pushed into his mouth "Iqbal Singh's eyes popped
out; he was unable to· breathe." 78 At the end of this inhuman episode too, the writer states:
By the time evening fell, all the marks of Sikhism on Iqbal Singh's
person had been replaced by the marks of the Muslim faith. A
mere change of marks had brought about the transfonnation. Now
he was no longer an ·enemy but a friend, not a kafir but a believer;
to whom the doors of all Muslim houses were open.
Lying em his cot, Iqbal Ahmed kept tossing and turning the whole
night.79

Thus, Sahni bril.liantly captures this mental torture by means of the deft strokes of his pen. He
even presents a case of forced abduetion. Sahni describes explicitly a young Prakasho being
80
kidnmpped by Allah Rakha,. who "hadl had his eyes on Prakasho for quite some time." when
the right opportunity strikes,. we see Allah Rakha too strike:
When the riot broke out mother and daughter were collecting
faggots from
1 the slope of the hill. Allah Rakha, along with two or
three of his friends, was already on the prowl: waiting for an
opportuni'1ty. They came running, Allah Rakha picked up Prakasho,
who shottted and eried but to no avail, and brought her home,
while her mother, dumbfounded, looked on and then came
.
wh Impenng.. h orne. 811

Howe''·er, what is even more disturbing is when Sahni delineates a forced marriage upon this
girl, who is subsequently shown to even accept her lot as her reality:

162
 , , • During the first night, Prakasho was left alone· in a dark room. On
the second day, Allah Rakha got some sort of nikah rites
performed and married her, ... For two days Prakasho lay crying
without a morsel of food or a drop of water going into her, and
kept staring at the walls of his house. But on the third day she
accepted a glassful of lassi from his hand and also washed her face.
The faces of her father and mother were constantly before her eyes
but Prakasho was painfully conscious of the fact that as against
Allah Rakha, they were too feeble to rescue her. 82

Sahni even succeeds in presenting before the readers yet another kind of violence that
accompanied Partition. According to existing accounts, self-imposed violence too was
common to those times. The readers of Tamas get an insight into this variety too. In a
touching episode in the novel, Sahni delineates how 34 women of Syedpur plunge into the
waters of a local well, to preserve the honour of their community. Thus, one observes that ·
Sahni has intelligently reflected violence in all its grim shades in his moving narrative.

However, of all these morbid faces of violence, Nihalani directly presents only the last in his
narrative. All the other descriptions are conveniently skipped aside in the movie. In other
words, the director never portrays visually the intensity and form of the violence that was
unleashed during Partition, which the novelist has forcefully tried to capture in his work. In
the movie, we do. s.ee fires rise, houses and shops bum, but Nihalani never sketches the details
of the violence that accompanied the times. It, on the other hand, is merely. suggested or
stated obliquely by means of a couple of odd references to the same.

Once in the heart of the narrative, Liza shares her pain and restlessness with her husband. It is
then that we hear her inform Richard:
What else is there for me to do? Here I am .... The whole town is
being burnt and looted. Women are being raped and killed. . . . I
think this is obscene. 83

Another such reference is towards the end of the movie, when the Statistics Babu mentions:
Dekhiye mujhe aankade chahiye. Sirf aankade. . . . Kitne marre.
Kitne ghayal hue. Kitna maali nuksaan hua. Mujhe aur kuch nahin
sunna hai. 84

Even Prakasho' s tale is only indirectly referred to, when in the last couple of scenes, a
helpless Brahmin couple share their woes with the Statistics Babu, and tell him that there is
no point in even trying to search for their dishonoured daughter. Interestingly, the director
merely does with a single statement to convey this horror, whereby the parents speculate how

163
thte abductors must already have comtpted her by forcing her to swallow "buri vastu" 85 into
her mouth. The details that Sahni offers are conveniently eluded. Sahni describes:
For a. few seconds Prakasho's eyes rested on Allah Rakha's face.
Then she slowly picked up a piece. Even after picking it up, she
was unable to lift her hand towards him. Prakasho's face had
tumed pale and her hand trembeled as though with the sudden
realization of how her parents would react were they to know what
she was about to do. But just then she saw Allah Rakha' s eyes full
of eager desire and Prakasho's hand went up to Allah Rakha's
mouth.
Both were opening up to each other. Allah Rakha moved closer to
her and enveloped her in his arms. Even though frightened and
subdued,. she became receptive to his embraces. It seemed to her as
though the past had drifted far away, while the present was waiting
to receive her with open arms. The situation had so radically
altered that Prakasho's parents had begun to appear irrelevant to
it.86

Other th'm these, fhert~ are only two more concentrated efforts on Nihalani 's part to unsettle
his viewers with the bloody and grim face of Partition violence. One of these is the scene
which happens when the riot breaks out in Syedpur. The Sikhs of the area, who have clamped
in the local Gurudwara,, send a peace emissary to the Muslims of their locality, who have
cluttered ira a local Sheikh's house. The 'Chhotta Granthi' along with Nathu are sent by the
Sikh head Ieja Singhji to negotiate and strike a deal of peace with their Muslim counterparts.
However, just as this young man and Nathu approach the Muslim crowd, the viewers hear
that they have been attacked and are being mercilessly beaten. Interestingly, NihaJani does
not focus his camera even once on these helpless men who ar·e being tortured by the Muslims.
His lens only focuses on the terrified face of the man in the Gurudwara, who witnesses and
then reports the brutal assault from the parapets of the Gurudwara. The shock of the event is
merely conveyed when the viewers see one of these bys~anders point a finger in the direction
of the assault and utter in a state of disbelief:
Wo deko! Un logon ki bheed Chote Granthi ki tarafbadh rahi hai.
Wo dekho, bheed ne use gher liya. Dikhaai nahin de raha. Arre!
87
Wo Chote Granthi ko maar rahe hain.

Just as he armoui'lces this, all the inhabitants of the Gurudwara are unnerved and the horrific
expressions on their faces accentuate the terror. All through this episode, Nihalani focuses
only on the frightened faces of all the men and women in the Gurudwara but never on the ·
scene of violence. Though the narration of this scene is reasonably effective and is the same
j,n the novel as w6U,, many claim that Nihalani could certainly have represented this mme

164
evocatively. through his lens. However; he abstains from doing so and strives to delineate
merely suggestively this violence which plays an integral role in the narration of any Partition .
narrative. Not just here, even when Nihalani describes the marauders looting Hamam Singh's
shop, he principally focuses his camera on Harnam Singh and Banto, who are hiding in a
comer. From that hidden comer they witness the tragic sight of their shop go up in flames. As
the shocked Hamam Singh utters "Aag lagaadi, Banto apne ghar ko aag lagaadi. ... Sab saaf
ho gaya," 88 the audience is also left terrified at the violence of the situation.

The very obvious reason behind such omissions is that Tamas was to be screened on
television for all sections of people, irrespective of any markers of restriction. In such a
situation, depicting gross violence could have been problematic in terms of its impact and
effects on the viewers. Even the Censor Board could have raised objections against such
delineations of violence, which had the potential of arousing bitter controversies. It was
perhaps such concerns that kept Nihalani away from representing violence explicitly on
screen. In fact, in one of his interviews, while talking about this absence of a graphic account
of violence, the director even states:
I didn't make the film sensational by depicting graphic details. I
suggested rather than show many things and this kept the viewer
involved and yet distanced so as to take objective decisions. 89

In a sense, Nihalani even accomplishes to achieve what he was proposing. By offering

graphic details of violence against a particular community, he could have ended up
victimizing and flaring the sentiments of both the victims and perpetrators of violence. Even
the reference ofPrakasho succumbing to her Muslim abductor's passion instead of preserving
her own and her community's honour would not have been palatable to an audience, which
was reasonably spread out. Instead, it could have created a huge ruckus. Besides, his effort ·
could even have easily been sabotaged by claiming it to be dangerous for mass viewing.

However, such a strategy does not necessarily have only advantages. Though it stays clear of
controversies, it often fails to evoke the requisite emotional response required for a venture
like Tamas. In fact, I feel that in such a situation, the entire representation of violence appears
rather theatrical, failing to arouse the catharsis that a film on Partition is often expected to. In
the movie, we only hear a man describe the violence from the roof of the Gurudwara through
his repeated 'wo dekhos':

165·
 Uska saathi usko bachaane ke liye aage badh raha hai. Wo dekho!
Chote Granthi ko maar rahe hain. Uska saathi aage badh raha hai.
Bheed ne~ use bhi gher liya.... Dono ko gira diya. Bheed ne dono
ko gira diya. Bheed dono ko maar rahi hai. Wo dekho! Bheed dono
ko maar rahi hai. ... Unhon ne gaon ko aag lagadi. Wo samaan loot
rahe hain. Chote Granthi ko maar rahe hain. Dekho! Vo Chote
Granthi iko maar rahe hain. Wo dekho. Wo saamaan loot rahe hain.
Aag laga rahe hain .... 90

And then furnish the details of the violence. In fact, this has often been perceived by many a-;
insufficient in terms of arousing the emotional climax of the viewers.

Even M. S, Sathyu, t1he director of Garam Hava, claims the same. In a personal interview, the
veteran dir~!ctor,. while discussing the movie, lauded Nihalani's venture as a good film on the
Partition of Punjab but daimed that it had a couple of weaknesses and failed in patches.
According t.o him, one of the most disturbing of these failings was that the movie often made
use of effects,, which we1r1e not well suited for the language of cinema. 91 Quoting the very
same episode he remarks that the absence of a graphic representation of violence fails to
move; often 1;educing good cinema to theatricality that does not go well with the filmic mode.

At this junctu.re I shall also like to quote two other references that feature in the novel but are
skipped by the director. In the novel it is clearly mentioned that the contractor who asks
Nathu to slauighter the pig is the Muslim Murad Ali. In the movie, on the other hand, the
religious identity ofthis same contractor is never really revealed clearly . In the entire rriovie,
he is only addressed by his designation and not his name. This indeed must hav;e been
politically engendered as openly showing a Muslim get a pig butchered and placed outside a
mosque for mere selfish gai11s, could have aroused huge protests by the concerned parties .
Similarly, Nihalani avoids all those interactions in the novel, where Richard informs Liza that
Hindus and Mu:slims ultimately belong to the "same racial stock."92 This too is a tricky
statement and hence the director perhaps neatly evades it.

However, it would be unwise to say that by skipping all the controversial sections of the
movie, Nihalani remains apolitical. Nihalani definitely represents the dynamics of politics of
Partition in his fUm. I have already discussed the face of the Congress that he offers in his
movie. If the Con~?'ess is represented as a party with some core values that seem to be failing
in the face of the political crisis, the Hindu Mahasabha is represented very poorly. Especially
obnoxious is the faice of the Youth Wing of this group.

166
Sahni too, in, his novel, shows the scary functioning of this sub-section of the Hindu
Mahasabha. He also describes how the Youth Wing of this group prepares young Hindu boys
to fight for their sect. Interestingly, the readers see them address every Muslim as their
"enemy"93 and each other as brave "warriors,"94 who have to protect the honour of their
religion. In the novel, we see Master Dev Vrat initiate Ranvit into their cult. After Ranvir
slaughters a hen and proves his mettle, he is declared fit to be an active member of the group:
'Stand up, Ranvir!' Masterji said, patting him on the back. 'You
have the necessary strength of will, you· have determination too,
even though your hand is still not very steady. You have passed the
initiation test.' He bent down, dipped his finger in the blood on the
stone slab and put a teeka with it on Ranvir's forehead, thus
inducting him into the category of the initiates. 95

Immediately after his induction into the group, we see him participate enthusiastically in all
the activities of his group. We see him use violence excitedly while trying to get the cauldron
from the halwai's shop. They intend using this utensil to boil oil which can then be poured
over their supposed enemies i.e. all Muslims. This representation of Ranvir features in the ·
movie as well. However, there is a subtle difference in the way Nihalani handles the event.

After this episode, where Ranvir is formally inducted into the group, Sahni introduces
numerous other episodes where the readers read of the city getting trapped in rising flames. It
is only after a couple of chapters that we once again see Ranvir with his associates. Though
there is no specific reference to the amount of time that has gone by between these two.
episodes, we surely get an idea that a massive riot has already flared 'up in town. We do hear
of the Grain Market bum. Besides loot, there are a few odd references to killings as well:
At a road-crossing in Naya Mohalla lay the dead body of a horse.
On the outskirts of the city, by the side of a road that led to the
villages, the dead body of a middle-aged man had been found.
Another dead body had been found in a graveyard on the western
edge of the town. 96

We also read of tension escalating in the region:

In one day all public activity - the prabhat pheris, the constructive
programmes and the like- had come to an end. 97

In fact, by the time we next see Ranvir and his troupe, we are informed by .the third person
narrator that even Jamail has been mercilessly killed. In other words, there is a significant hint
that at least some time has gone by between Ranvir's induction and his cold-blooded murder
of an elderly perfume seller. It is only after things in town have taken an ugly shape that

167
Ranvir features again im a scene where he acts out as the commander of .that group. In the
previous episode, we had witnessed Inder, another young man, order him and one of his
colleagues to fetch a.t cauldron for boiling oil. How this change in the leadership of this Youth
Wing happens is nelVer described dearly. However, there are suggestions whereby the readers
~we informed that Ranvir "had developed supreme self-confidence"98 after passing the
initiation test. It is perhaps this great courage and passion that must have impressed his
seniors, who would have employed him the 'senapati.' Hence, the second time we see Ranvir
in the nov~el, he is busy ordering am1cl instructing his fellow warriors about how the enemy is to
be attacked. It is only after all this that we witness Ranvir order one of his associates, Inder, to
attack the aged, haritnless, defenseless Muslim perfume seller. This heartless murder is one of
the most astounding. and horrific descriptions of violence in the novel.

In the movie, on the other hand, things appear very distinct. Before deliberating upon the
reasons. behind these departures, I shall enlist the changes that Nihalani brings about while
adapting this scene for the screen.

The scene where the old man is murdered appears at a juncture in the movie, which is a little
di[fferent from that of the novel. As discussed earlier, in the novel, we see the murder take
place after rioting and killing has already started in town. The case in the movie is mot so. In
the movie, we definitely witness tension in the air. However, this episode is placed very early
in the movie, befc)rt: t~ings have gone completely out of order. There is absolutely no
reference of a full blown riot having erupted in town before we see Ranvir kill the old man. In
other words, tension has escalated in town prior to this episode but there are no signs of .
anything viciously viol'ent having happened anywhere in town. In fact, this episode features
soon after a reason{hbly composed episode, where the viewers watch many commoners sip tea
and gently discuss the previous day's events at a 'nanbai's' shop. Ironically their talks are
laden with undertones of a basically harmonious co-existence across various religi0us sects.
Other than the talk about the 'pir,.' who looks upon the Muslims and non-Muslims with equal
~Jympathy, we hear a wise old man inform that the British are clever manipulators:
To l~aat ye hai Gilani aur aap sab log, ki haakirn bahut door ki
soclita hai. Aur ·wo, wo sab kuch dekh sakta hai jo hum aap ko
nahi.n dikhai deta. Warna, ye kya mumkin ho sakta hai ki muthi
bhai· .firangi, saat samandar paar se yahan aaein, aur Hindustan
jais~ bade mulk par hukumat karein? Angrez jo hai bahut hi
daairishmand hai. Blahut hi door ki sochta hai! 99

168
 We also hear a Muslim condemn the developments in town. When one of his associates states
that it is a sin on the part of a Hindu to have slaughtered a pig and thrown it in front of the
mosque, he questions whether what the Muslims did was correct. In the movie, soon after we
witness the butchered pig, we see a man fiercely chasing a cow. Though the butchering of the
cow is neither shown nor reported, the audiences clearly get an idea that the cow is soon
going to be killed. It is with regards to such developments that we hear a Muslim tell one of
his co-religionists, "Bhai mandir ho ya masjid, aisi harkat napaakh hai." 100 In this context
then, one of the first obnoxious acts of violence against a human that the viewers get to
witness becomes the above referred murder itself. (This is also the second of the earlier stated
two obvious delineations of violence in the movie.)

Such a sequence of events could surely be politically governed. In other words, with no
reference to any antecedent of murders and killings and the first of these acts being committed
by a member of the RSS could definitely have been a conscious decision on the part of the
director. Perhaps such is the light in which the director views the workings of the RSS!

However, the even more scary sight is the way the killing is presented. Interestingly, in the
movie it is Ranvir and not Inder, who kills the old man. What becomes most disturbing is to
witness the way a young boy is swept into the ideology of Hindu fundamentalism. Nihalani
. does not even give much of a breather between Ranvir's initiation and his so called display of
'valour'. Besides, in the absence of any preceding act of overt violence, Ranvir's deed only
leaves the audience befuddled at the logic behind Ranvir being scared to kill even a hen one
moment and heartlessly violent while killing a harmless Muslim the very next moment.
However, if one attempts a close reading of his initiation test, one might find one's answer.

During his initiation test, we witness Ranvir puke when he watches his Master Dev Vrat
slaughter a hen. We see him being slapped by the teacher for being weak. The master tells
him not to think and further adds:
Ranvir ye veerta ke lakshan nahin hain. Arya putron mein mansa,
vacha, karmana - teenon prakaar ki dridhtaa ki aavashyakta hoti hai.
... Jo yuvak ek murgi nahin kaat sakta, wo shatru ko kya kaatega? 101

We even see the unsure young man's mortal fear as he attempts the hen's murder. What
compels him to do so is left unelaborated, but for that since his master has given him an
ultimatum to do so, he kills the hen in all rashness. Master Dev Vrat had warned him:

169
 . Tumhe p{mnch minute ka samay aur diya jaata hai. Is beech agar
tum mur{~i nahin kaat sake, to tumhe deeksha ke liye aayogya
manajay(!ga. Tumhe deeksha nahin di jayegi. 102

At the same time, the oilier impression that one gathers is that he is indoctrinated into doing
so. In a close up sequ(!nce, the spectators witness Master Dev Vrat, nearly peer through
Ranvi:r' s eyes and pass his order.. One almost gets a feeling that he hypnotizes Ranvir into
committing the deed. Though there is no certainty behind this statement, the progression of
the se~quences very stroitgly recommends the same. A little later, we witness Ranvir too adopt
a similar technique with his associates.

Ranvir is shovm as one of the membe:rs of the Youth Wing and we see him work wnder a team
leader, Inder, whom thi!Y aH address as 'senapati.' However, all of a sudden, in one strange
twist, we see RaJflvir claim Slilpreme control and himself announce that henceforth he would be
the ·~~enapati' oft?e gr(mp. In fac:t, this appears rather unsettling. There is absolutely no logic
offered as to why he as.sumes commandership. The only justification that appears is that
Ranvir perhaps feels th:e need to do s:o and feels better equipped. Inder is even seen objecting,
but to no avail. Strangely, we merdy see Ranvir inform his erstwhile 'senapa.ti' about his
deci:~ion of being in charge from thelil on. The former 'senapati' is still raising objections
about Ranvir bypassin{~ his powers, when Ranvir orders him to go and attack a Muslim on the
street. We see Ranvir (mnounce almost clinically, "Indra tumhaara shastra kulhaadi hoga." 103
His ex-commander is silenced when he first hears Ranvir spout this dialogue in a tone that
seems to reflect the style and manner of a hypnotist. And the moment Ranvir has finished
repeating the same coinmand for a second time in the same fashion, we hear the ex-incharge
of the group, who till then had been raising a hue and cry, utter "Jo aagya senapati." 104

Not only does Inder ol~ey Ranvir's order here, after this episode, we see him obey each of his
new 'senapati's' comman<l diligently. Besides, we see Ranvir adopt such a style not just once.
Earlier too one watch~~s him repeat one of his dialogues in a similar fashion and that utterance
is seen to have the sarne effect on his listeners. When Inder is wondering how they would get
the cauldron to boil tOil, someone informs that the 'halwai's' shop from which they were
supjposed to fetch the utensil, is shut. Upon hearing this, Ranvir immediately utters, "Dukaan
ka taala tod do." 105 When he repeats this dialogue in the above referred tone, it produces the
same impact on its b~arer. We see: the till then unsure 'senapati' (Inder) order Ranvir to do
what the latter has proposed a minute ago.

170
 This entire ·.representation appears rather strange and most certainly presents the entire
functioning of the RSS morbidly. One must remember that Nihalani never refers to these
young men as members of the RSS. The name does not even feature in the movie. However,
these boys' uniform and a reference to them being members of the Youth Wing of the Hindu
Mahasabha, makes things reasonably obvious. The novel too does not paint a very positive
·image of.this group. But what is worth considering is that things do not appear as skewed in
the novel, as they do in the movie. In the novel, the murder of the Muslim perfume-seller is
shown to be at least motivated. There are hints that killings have erupted in town and one
could interpret their acts too to be some form of retaliation. One the other hand, in the movie,
their actions appear almost flawed, barbaric and unguided. Even before the riots have erupted,
we hear Ranvir tell his fellowmen:
Aaj hamein kam se kam ek shatru ka vadh kama hai. Iski. viewh
rachna maine nishchit kar di hai. 106

There are no obviously logical arguments that can justify Ran vir's stand. In such a context,
they only appear as misguided youths cast under the spell of a strange dogma. It was perhaps
this very delineation that invited terrible flak and opposition from the Hindu fundamentalists,
who demanded banning the telecast of this serial:
At the time of its showing, it was greeted with considerable
controversy with injunctions brought against it in the Bombay
High Court, actions which it justly survived. 107

Such representations only leave us wondering at the flawed piece of logic that these young
men are driven by. Perhaps this is how Nihalani views the RSS and to give face to his belief,
he brings about the above mentioned changes in the sequence and nature of frames here. Yet
another reason behind this departure could be constraints of the medium. In order to maintain
unity of action in such an epic narrative, spacing such episodes close to each other or skipping
the character of Inder might have been more feasible. Nihalani has repeatedly spoken about
the need to cull out a tight plot from the episodic nature of the novel, in order to successfully
screen it as the tele-serial. Of the numerous measures that he is seen to adopt, one was to draw
together the strands of a sub-narrative in one episode itself. Nihalani himself states:
I also realized that each episode would be viewed six days apart
and while this may be good for distancing the viewer or making
him more objective, the fact still remains that it plays havoc with
the continuity. We therefore ensured that each episode, though a
~ont~nuation of the previous episode, was a self-contained entity. 108

However, I believe that the former was what Nihalani intended to portray.

171
Other than these two, .there is yet another political group, i.e. the Commurtist party, that is
dealt with at length in both. the novel and the film. In both the novel as well as the movie, we
see the Cornrnunists try their level best to preserve peace and order. HoweYer, while
representing this party to01,, Nihalani departs a little from the novel. Unlike the novel, where
the leader of the Communists is clearly addressed as Dev Datt, in the movie, this man is seen .
as Iqbal. Very intelligently, Nihalani does not add any further detail to this name. Hence, we
never figure out whether this Iqbal is a Hindu or a Muslim. Early in the narrative itself we see
Iqbal trying hatd to convince: the members of the Congress and the League to take necessary
action towardls peace, lest things go out of control. The failed expression on his face, when
both the parth!s refuse to budge, reflects nothing but his genuineness. Before this when we see
him try and convince an erstv,rhile comrade to not feel dejected with the party principles, we
see his efforts as sincere, forc•~ful and targeted. In the novel, we only hear him claim:
'Don't take any step in haste, comrade. The class to which we
belong -- the middle class - is easily affected by traditional
influences. Had you come from the working class, the question of
Hindu and Muslim would not have bothered you so much.' 109

In the movie, ()n the other hand, we see Iqbal explain this point at length to his colleague and
not give up in just one odd reference. Besides, the argwnents too are presented more
comprehensiveiy and explicitly . I shall elaborate this idea subsequently.

Hence, one can: state that to show a comprehensive face of the tragedy in all its kaleidoscopic
dimensions wa:.s most certain1ly Nihalani' s endeavour. It is for this reason that he represents
the varied faces: of all groups, parties and communities through which viewers see the coming
about of Partition. And while doing so, he takes a very obvious political position as well.
Like Sahni, Nihalani most clearly blames the British policy of divide and rule. Many of the
important characters are heard blaming the British. Most of the dialogues where the British
are accused are directly lifted f1rom the novel. A few additions that Nihalani makes reiterate ·
his stand point more effectively and present it more comprehensively for the audience.

Be it Iqbal or Mirdad; both become essential mouth-pieces of the director. Most of what
Saban Singh utt(~rs in the movie features in the novel too, but there are a couple of additions
in the interactioits of Mirdad in the movie. Mirdad has been deployed in Syedpur to pacify
the Muslims of tliat area and hdp them strike peace with the Sikhs of that area.

172
While Mirdad is seen urging the Muslims to shun violence, we see him blame the British for
their selfish tricks. When Mirdad tries to tell Dilawar Bhai that the British are playing foul
games, we hear the latter,.who is one ofthe important Muslim members ofSyedpur, say:
Angrez ki hukumat mein kya kharaabi hai? Mulk mein aisa haakim
hua hai Baadshah Akbar ke baad? 110

It must be remembered that this dialogue never features in the novel. Such introductions by
Nihalani reinforce the belief yet more emphatically that the British had played a clever game
with Indians and indoctrinated them into believing that Muslims cannot be safe under Hindus.
It is perhaps for this reason that Dilawar Bhai 's list of praises includes an Akbar and then the
British. This was the only manner in which they could conserve their hold on the Indians. At
the same time through such dialogues, Nihalani also sends across positive signals, whereby
he indirectly presents not all Muslim rulers as barbarous. The audience is obliquely reminded
that if there were Muslims who were fanatics, there was a secular face of Islam as well.

Earlier too we hear Iqbal utter this very stance rather comprehensively. While Iqbal is trying
to inform his disillusioned colleague about how the British are exploiting people in the name
of religion, he exposes the tricks of the British:
Hamein colonial aur imperialist taakat ki chaal ko samajhna
chaahiye. Vested interests kis tarah halaat ka fayeda utha kar
khalbali machaata hai. Hamein ye samajhna chaahiye. 111

However, this absolute blackening of the English image is most movingly done in the
characterization of Liza, the DC Richard's wife. While in the novel, we only come across
Liza as the bored wife of a British civil servant posted in India, in the movie, she becomes the
most biting attack against the Britishers. We see Liza scorn upon Richard's callousness and
selfishness. When we hear the sensitive Liza cry against the ugly tricks that are being played
against the innocent Hindu, Muslim and Sikhs, the audience is yet more compelled to believe
the stance that the British has a cunning and crucial role behind the entire communal vendetta
that escalated amongst the varied religious sects in India. The final blow is struck when
ironically, the same Liza, a very 'insider' in the British versus Indian divide, decides to go
out to a rescue camp and nurse the umpteen innocents, whose lives have gone in for a ·
somersault because of the misdoings of some few men at the helm of affairs.

Such departures clearly indicate that not even for a second did Nihalani want his viewers to
forget the tricks played by the British. In fact, so forcefully does the director strive to

173
foreground this idea, that other than the right wing Hindu Mahasabha, whose workings appear
strangely fundamental, all the other political groups seem to be absolved of any obvious guilt.
This was a charge levied against Sahni as well. Gyanendra Pandey called Tamas as an act of
generating a "collectiv,e: amnesia." 112 Even Nihalani can be accused of the same. However,
what many label an attack, is also the achievement of the film:
One of the disquieting features of the film is Nihalani's refusal to
attribute blame, a convenience that often helps (albeit mistakemly,
perhaps) an audience to achieve moral tidiness. Of course,
particular interests will find blame whenever they want to find it:
this is both the message ofNihalani's film and vulnerability.m

Thus one can say that overall Nihalani fleshes out a fine portrayal of the phantasmagoria that
enveloped a nation in the wake of Partition. Nihalani was adapting a novel with an episodic
narrativ1~ iinto a tele-s1erial, due to which he operates within a specific framework. Keeping
these constraints in mind, he culls out a tight script, with a unity of central action. It is perhaps
for this :reason that h<:: brings about a change in the story of Nathu and Harnam Singh too. If
each sub-plot had func1tioned as an independent narrative account, as it does in the novel,
there wcmld have been. a danger of episodes falling apart and the entire continuity collapsing.
This dattger was yet ·more pronounced in case of his tele-series format. One must remember
that his film was to be screened in the form of episodes, each at the gap of a week. In such a
situation, an episodic stmcture could have played havoc with continuity. However, Nihalani
overcomes all these obstacles by means of ingenious strategies. The most significant of these
is the mtmner in which he draws all the sub-plots together and neatly weaves then into one
culminating moment; whereby we see the three most significant sub-narratives of the story
culminate in one Gurudwara at Syedpur. John W. Hood too praises this strategy. He states:
The film has a simple narrative order based on a humble tanner, Nathu,
and his pr~egnant wife, Karmo. In the second half of the film this story
line merg,es with one focusing on an elderly Sikh couple, Harnam
Singh ancl his wife, Banto. On this uncomplicated narrativ~e spine
Nihalani hangs his sequences introducing the diverse interest groups
along with the naivete, the confusion, the humanity and the violence
114
that pervade: the playing out of their various roles in the turbulence.

Other th<.m this he inoorporates some other minor changes to give a further punch to his
narrative. For example in the novel when an erstwhile Communist party worker expresses his
disillusio:nment with party principles, we see Dev Datt plead with his colleague to understand
the fact tl'iat the middl<:: class is bound in traditional structures and that the lower class is still
far away from being inducted into the hub of communal vendetta. This point is stated by

174
Iqbal, the head of the Communists in the movie as well. However, Nihalani clarifies this stand
further to elaborate the ideology of the Communists to the viewers even more emphatically:
Hamein colonial aur imperialist taakat ki chaal ko samajhna
chaahiye. Vested interests kis tarah haalat ka faayeda utha kar
khalbali machaata hai. Hamein ye samajhna chaahiye. 115

Similarly, the skepticism of the Congress party workers too is brilliantly contextualized and
elaborated in an endeavour to involve the audiences into the narrative process. In one of the
early episodes of the movie, when some members of the Congress, during the 'tameeri kaam'
express lack of faith in the efficacy of such Gandhian programmes, we hear Mehtaji claim:
Bakshiji main ek baat kahoon. Hum log kitne barson se taameeri
kaam kar rahe hain. Ek samay mein iska asar bhi tha. Lekin ab
dekhiye na. Kya ho raha hai? Kalkatte mein to phasaad ho hi gaye
na. Gandhiji ne ann shan kiya. Khud Naokhali bhi gaye. Aag
thandi hui. Magar aag bujhi to nahin. Phir in sab chizon ka ... 116

One must remember that though this episode features, this dialogue never appears in the
novel. In fact, there are a plenty of other situations where Nihalani adopts a similar strategy.
He
. adds dialogues. to enunciate the argument more clearly and one can conveniently call this
as a necessity of the medium that the director was working in. The consumers of a literary
piece are often educated men and women, grounded in an academic background and extended
explanations. As opposed to that, a film or tele-serial is viewed by masses, which belong to
varied strata of the society. In such a case then, a director has to keep the sensibility and
sensitivity of all kinds of audiences in mind. Thus, if the assumption is that some of the
consumers of the film might be people with not much knowledge of history and politics, it
becomes essential to provide them with a background and extended expectations. Else there
can always be dangers of lack of comprehension or misrepresentation.

Nihalani was definitely desirous of putting across a message powerfully through his
adaptation. He wanted. to highlight the sheer banality of the event in which poor innocents
suffered and perhaps are continuing to suffer. He even claims the same in an interview:
I didn't make the film sensational by depicting graphic details. I
suggested rather than show many things and this kept the viewer
involved and yet distanced so as to take objective decisions. More
than that, I did not mention the word 'Partition' during the film.
This was not due to censorship but because I wanted the film's
narrative to transcend the event. This could have happened in any
era: the fact that millions of people were uprooted and millions
were killed in the name of religion. So I used the legend: Those
117
who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

175
In 9rder to hammer this point to an audience, he needed to invent measures whereby the
mes~age could be put across potently ~md repeatedly. To a large extent Nihalani accomplishes
this and deserves acciolades for the manner in which he achieves his goal. Vvithout being
repetitive and boring, h€: makes his ea.ll forecfully. One of his measures is the way he weaves
two short-stories by Sahni into his mega narrative. As discussed earlier, the story of the
'Sa:Jrdami' and the MiLslim teacher Zahud Baksh, which never feature in the novel, effe.ctively
heighten his central Iitotive. He also makes another potent addition in the movie. A sect called
the~ Rababis, who are Muslims, but worship the Guru Granth Sahib is poignantly projected by
the director. The she:er horror and lament of these men when they declare the pathos of the
sit,uation leaves the audiemces further moved by the tragedy of Partition:
Sachche Paadshah. Reham kar mere maalik. Reham kar.... Kyon
aaj tere: saaye mein basne waala gaaon shamshaan ban gaya hai?
. . . Nfere Allah. M~ere Satguru. Tu un sab begunaahon ko apne
kadrr'Lon mein panaah de, jo is andhe mazhabi junoon ka shikaar
hue hain, aur aaj tere dwaare aan pahunche hain. Reham kar.
Reham kar mere maalik. Reham, reham, reham. 118

Earlier too through the complaints of these men, the audiences are once again reminded of the
syncretism that many daim,. existed in times close to the coming about of Partiticm. While
sharing his angst With Mirdad, one of the Rababis is heard lamenting:
Ye siyaasat to harnesha rahegi Mirdad bhai. Lekin mareinge to
hUilh. sab garib hi. na? Zara dekhiye. Hum Musalmaan hain. Rababi
hai~n. Pushton se Guru Maharaj ki baani ka gaan karte aa rahe hain.
Lekin aaj hamein gurudware mein jaane nahin diya Mirdad bhai.
Ha'maara mann toot gaya. Hum roye.. Itni umar mein pehH baar
Gtitru 1\!Iaharaj ke saamne jaa kar unki baani ka paath nahin kiya
hat Hamaate dare! ko koi nahin samjhega Mirda.d bhai. Is Hindu
Musalmaan ke jhagde se hamaara kya lena dena? Main to kehta
h0on ye jhagda hai hi bemaana. Ab aap hi bataaiye, hum kahan
ja:'Yein? Gurudware mein jaate hain, to kehte hain hamaari jaan ko
khatra. hai. Agar ghar mein Gurbani ka paath karte hain, to hamein
k1~fir kahajaata hai. Humjayein kahan? Karein kya? 119

Not only does t'he: director succeed in presenting this harmonious face of the Indian society
through such '¥dditional narrations, but also through his powerful camera work. In the .
episode, where he captures the experiences of the Muslim teacher who plans to ttanslate
Shakuntala int<) Urdu, his lens neatly glances past the different articles lying in his room. In
that one skim !Of the camera, where the audiences witness both books of Urdu and Sanskrit
lying on the shelf of this master, the audience is one again reminded of the inter-communal
tolerance and peaceful co-existence that persisted in the pre-Partition days.

176
There is yet another significant juncture in the. movie whereby this belief. is heightened
considerably. Interestingly this reference too is a departure from the novel. In the novel, we
hear of a 'pir' come to town. As the sage crosses the by-lanes, the men in the streets begin to
discuss his spiritual attainments. In the novel, there is a clear reference to the 'pir' too
becoming communal in his leanings with the rising tension during the weeks before Partition:
'But the Pir Sahib does not touch kafirs with his hands. He hates
infidels. Earlier, it was different. Anyone could go to him. Only, if
an infidel came for treatment, he would feel his pulse with a stick -
putting one end of the stick on his pulse and the other to his ear,
and thus diagnose the. disease. But now he does not permit any
kafir to come near him' 120

In the movie, on the other hand, this reference is skipped. We only hear the men discuss how
the noble 'pir' has mercy for both religions. It is never mentioned that things had changed in
the wake of rising communalism. We only hear elderly Muslims praise the noble man thus:
Ye Pir Sahib Musalmaanon se bahut mohabbat karte hain. Waise
ilaaj ke liye unke yahan koi bhi jaa sakta hai. Auron ko wo, apni
chhadi ki nok unki nabz par rakh di, aur nabz ko sun liya. 121

Even the friendship between the Hindu Lalaji and the Muslim Noor Ilahi, despite moments of
crisis, further corroborates the above stated idea. Other than these, the most prominent of
these strategies is the characterization of Jamail, which is largely based on the way it is
presented in the novel. However, the brilliant acting by Virendra Saxena and a couple of
additional lines and scenes that further enhance the intensity of his passion and commitment
for the cause of freedom, make him appear as one of the most loveable characters in the
series. At a critical juncture in the novel, just seconds before his death, we hear him cry out:
'Sahiban, Hindus and Musalmans are brothers. There is rioting in
the city; fires are raging and there is no one to stop it. The Deputy
Commissioner is sitting in his bungalow, with his madam in his
arms. I say, our real enemy is the Englishman.' 122

This episode and these dialogues feature in the movie too but Nihalani makes a couple of
changes here too. In addition to Jamail's protests against Partition that feature in the novel,
the director makes him utter a couple of additional sentences as well:
Sahiban mazhab ke naam par logon ko bhadkaana gunah hai.
Mazhab ke naam par mulk ke tukde kama galt hai, galt hai
sahiban. 123

Other than this cleverly incorporated change in the narration of this entire episode, the lens
definitely adds its magic to it and makes Jamail's death appear far more bone-chilling. So
brilliantly is the entire sequence captured that the viewers are forced to live the trauma and

177
Nihalani' s central vision too is forcefully reiterated. Thus, it is through such ingenious
measures that the director flelshes out the tragedy of Partition, in which millions of innocents
suffered a~• men transformed into beasts; causing tremendous havoc.

In the eyes: of Sahni, Partition was definitely a phase where mankind as a whole failed. Man
ended up killing man, while none, not eve:n the best, could grapple with the 'darkness' of the
times. The fact is that Partition was a dark phase where there was "a very thin line between
the restraint of civilisation ~nd the·latitud!e of barbarity.~' 124 Nihalani captures this idea most
conspicuously in the representation of Shah Nawaz, where we see him save his Hindu friends
one minute and heartlessly nmrder the i1mocent Hindu servant of that very household (Nanku)
the next moment. Thits description features in the novel as well but there we read Shah Nawaz
murder Milkhi, another servant of his frie:nd. Nihalani however, clubs Milkhi and Nanlm and
forcefully makes his poiitt. Nihalani's superb direction captures this sequence more
evocatively than the novel. JSlaborating this stance, Ranjani Mazumdar states:
In the novel!, the build up to Shah Nawaz's action is casually
mapped out 1Jhrough a series of street and personal encounters. The
violence in the town is visible for him to see. The tele-series, on
the other hand, compresses this moment in a single encounter. The
use of darkened stairs and ithe slow build-up creates an uncanny
aura, again pontributing to the feeling that the Partition violence
. ' 125
was at times too complex to comprehend.

It is such departures in the (:>riginal narrative coupled with an intelligent use of film tropes, the
breathtaking terrific backgr'ound music score by Vanraj Bhatia, exceptional pelformances and
deft camera work that makie Nihalani's Tamas emerge as a site for a very relevant and crucial
political discourse, until th(m skimmed aside in the annals of Indian cinema.

Nandi Bhatia too, while attempting an analysis of the novel, states that so realistic is the
representation of Paritition in Tamas that
I would like: tl) argue that Tamas is a critique directed at the writing
of a history that consciously engages in censoring the human side
of the trageidy. 126

There is; no <!lenying that there has been a constant endeavour on the part of the state to silence;
the grim face of Partition with a singular commitment and flourish. (I have already elaborated
this concept in the Introduction of this thesis.) And Nihalani's effort is a bold step in the path
of revealing the. darkness of the times in all its true dimensions.

178
Yet another significant reality is that amidst this mayhem, humanity too prevailed and like
Sahni, Nihalani too has tried to delineate this in his narrative. In fact, as discussed earlier, the
director manages to capture this face of the tragedy even more comprehensively. In other
words, besides denouncing this very tragedy, he celebrates the humanism that coupled the
barbarism of the times. It is due to such measures that critics claim the movie as a brilliant
attempt to capture a true face of Partition in all its multiple dimensions.

Thus, to conclude one can comfortably state that Nihalani stays reasonably close to the
original narrative. A major reason behind this perhaps was because the novelist himself
assisted the film-maker in writing the script. As stated in the Introduction, a movie is a
collective effort. It is not the vision of just one man. Though the director of a film has the
most crucial say, the other artists working on the movie too play a significant role.

Thus one could say that it is the very close association of the novelist and the director that
make the two endeavours appear reasonably similar especially in terms of their ideological
paradigms. However, this does not imply that Nihalani's effort is one mediocre mimesis of
the original. In fact, one can state that it is the team effort of the director and his other
associates working on the film that lends it a reasonably distinct flavour and sparkle. A very
interesting example of this cumulative effort can be found in a close reading of one of Sahni' s
comments itself. While deliberating upon the change in the track of Hamam Singh in his
movie, Alok Bhalla reports Sahni's stance thus:
Bhisham Sahni said that when he played the role of Hamam Singh
in the film, he felt such deep empathy for him that he forgot the
pathos with which the character is depicted in the novel. He added
that the moral fortitude of Hamam Singh in the film was perhaps a
result of his own increasing confidence in the ability of the
country's composite ethos to withstand new separatist threats and,
at the same time, to reach out to its neighbours in order to establish
a new lease of peace in the region. 127

Nihalani's Tamas ends up emerging as one of the most significant documentaries on one of
the worst massacres that ever enveloped a nation. Its power lay in the fact that the tele-series
emerged as a major public site of controversy and a journey into a sea of human hatred and
brutality, whose ugliness has never really disappeared.

Nihalani definitely had the advantage of the camera. A brilliant plot, an enviable star cast,
excellent direction and camerawork makes Nihalani' s Tamas stand out as a venture par

179
excellence. ifhe movie has often been subject to numerous attacks. While some blame it for
being too ap()litical, some others attack it for being over cautious while depicting violence.

However, despite attacks,, Nihalani's venture stands out as one "of a superior technical
--=-
quality" with "a strong emotional charge and epic flavor." 128 Without being highly
~-----

provocative, the director offers a realistic portrait of the trauma that swept a nation in its tide.
One has onl~y to look upon scenes like the one where a helpless father throws precious
----.- ·--- ----
ornaments be.cause he desperately needs food to save his hungry daughter. Money in such a
-
case has no meaning for a father. Such delineations often realistically capture the feel of what
Partition stood for a generation. While praising the film, John W. Hood claims that:
Tamas thrives on its visual excellence, ... The realism of the mise-
en-scene is absolutely vital to the film, giving logic and immediate
credibility to the representation of small town life nearly forty
years earlier. The frequency of close and medium shots and the
judicious ~se of t.racking give. the ~l~ a remarkable falpability,
2
ei1compassmg, as 1t were, the v1ewer m tts own world. 1

Other than praising the superb camerawork, he even lauds the restrained depiction of events:
Tamas is also a remarkably restrained film that could so easi~y
have been sensationalized with more graphic and horrific
representation of unleashed blood-letting. The film's atmospherics
are especially well devised and presented; for example, the actual
burgeoning of the riot out of suspicion and mistrust, through
apprehension and fear, to anger, hatred and violence, is done with a
(~hilling relentlessness, the effect of which is intensified by the
130
sHent candour of the shots of the aftermath.
131
Thus, despite the ciDnstraints of the medium, Nihalani depicts a. "hair raising" what Ranjani
4c:::::::: -
Majumdar calls ~'visceral experience" 132 of the violence and terror that accompanied the times.
------- ---· ....

It manages to rdive a history that the Indian film world had until then been coy to express.
And Nihalani surely deserves accolades for this realistic and bold attempt to capture a time
that we all need to l:earn from and not run away from. It is perhaps for such callings that the
veteran writer Bhisham Sahni too states:
Tamas ke TV serial ke roop mein filmaaye jaane! ka maine swagat
kiya hai. Jo kaam ek upanyaas bade seemit kshetra mein kar sakta
h~Li, vahi kaam TV serial deshvyapi star par kar sakta hai. Is sankat
k(~ samay mein yadi desh ki ekta, akhandata, dharma-nirpekshta
aa:di ko sudrir banaane ki disha mein ye kisi hadh tak bhi
jainsaadhaaran l'w sachet kar sakta hai, to main ise ek saarthak
.
prayaas h"1 manoonga. 133

180