Why ‘Final Solution Should Be Discussed?

Some time ago, Anand Patwardhan, a documentary filmmaker chose the documentary Final Solution (2004) among “Ten Greatest Films of All Time” for Sight And Sound (BFI) placing it alongside brilliant works by several filmmakers across the world. Rakesh Sharma’s first reaction to the news was, “I never imagined that any of my films would ever be spoken of in the same breath as Patricio Guzman’s Battle for Chile, Wintonick’s Manufacturing Consent, John Pilger’s The War You Don’t See, Michael Moore’s Bowling for the Columbine or Avi Mograbi’s Avenge But One of My Two Eyes.” Earlier, Final Solution had won the Wolfgang Stautde Award (for Best Feature-length Film at Berlinale 2004 at its premiere, that no documentary ever won before or ever since.

Rakesh Sharma needs no introduction to Indians who have been following the human rights movement in the media. But Final Solution is not the beginning, and most certainly not the end of his journey that established him as one of the most outspoken and independent filmmakers who makes a strong statement against any violation of human rights. He fights with the powers-that-be and he fights with the censor board. His numerous awards won at international film festivals have not gone to his head. Rather, they have strengthened his determination to go ahead and make his statement in the best Aftershocks marked his return to documentary after a gap of 10 years. Though, today, Rakesh is better known for Final Solution that had to fight through a censor ban, he made an equally strong and powerful film, Aftershocks, before Final Solution.

Final Solution is a study of the politics of hate. Set in Gujarat during the period Feb/March 2002 - July 2003, the film graphically documents the changing face of right-wing politics in India through a study of the 2002 carnage in Gujarat in Western India. It specifically examines political tendencies reminiscent of the Nazi Germany of early 1930s. About what motivated him to make Final Solution, Rakesh says, “Post-911, we live in a world where politics of hate and intolerance has gained mainstream acceptance, even grabbed centre stage. The ‘War on Terror’ dominated the electoral discourse in the US presidential elections, with both candidates promising to hunt ‘em and kill ‘em better than the other.

The right wing seems to be tightening its stranglehold across Europe as well, a nationalism being fuelled by the anti-immigrant/anti-Moslem rhetoric. In a world where it has become legitimate to use fictitious intelligence to justify the bombing of innocents in Iraq, where it has become acceptable to launch precision bombs and rockets against non-“embedded” journalists, where shameless politicians divide up oil wells and farm out reconstruction contracts for their $36 million bonuses, where babies are killed and mutilated as acceptable “collateral damage”, we face a challenge greater than ever before. We have earlier lived through many dark periods in history, often justifying our barbarism by using similar rhetoric. Hate, despair, destruction and tragedy cannot possibly be the foundations of harmonious societies and a democratic world.

The Censors banned it but finally cleared it for public screening on the ground that it could incite communal flare-ups. Sharma had appealed to the board to send the film for a review. The Censor Board had previously said, “The film promotes communal disharmony among Hindu and Muslim groups and presents the picture of Gujarat riots in a way that may arouse communal feelings and clashes. Certain dialogues involve defamation of individuals. The entire picturisation is highly provocative.” But when the was shown on October 7, 2004, to the high-profile revising committee comprising Censor Board chairperson Anupam Kher, filmmaker Shyam Benegal, activist Teesta Setalvad, theatre personality Dolly Thakore and filmmaker Ashok Pandit, they said the film could be released without any change. The film has won the prestigious Wolfgang Staudte Award at the Berlin International Film Festival, where it also won the Special Jury Award.

One of the citations by one of the many awards the film has bagged goes like this. “It is an epic documentary focusing on a culture of hatred and indifference in the region of Gujarat, India. The simplicity, clarity and accuracy of the film enable viewers to reflect on the universality of the subject matter and to relate their own human attitudes to it. The filmmaker has chosen a documentary form that completely shuns the use of melodramatic effects and thus makes a stand against the omnipresent “infotainment; industry.”

His financial status though, is not even half as impressive as his grit, his string of awards and his fearlessness. “As a filmmaker, I am extremely poor. My savings have more or less run out. But I do not know what else to do except make films. I am improvising all the time with the tools I know a bit about, such as films and video, so that lack of funds does not become a serious block. I would love to make a funny documentary or a social-anthropological film on romance in changing times. I would to make a murder mystery too, and to play with a form where documentary and fictions merge, moving in and out seamlessly. But I have no choice when I meet people with sorrow in their eyes and hollowness in their spirits. So, I continue to remain an interventionist when something agitates me.”