Nationalist Sentiments amidst Partition, Marginalization, and Identity Crisis: Exploring Intersectional Nuances in Srijit Mukherji’s 'RAJKAHINI.'

- Debargha Nath

An Introduction to Rajkahini:

The film starts with the quotation “Dedicated to every refugee in the world.”

Rajkahini is an Indian Bengali-language historical drama film directed by Srijit Mukherji. The film has an ensemble cast of eleven female characters led by “Begumjaan,” Rituparna Sengupta. It also stars Saswata Chatterjee, Kaushik Sen, Jisshu Sengupta, Abir Chatterjee, and Jaya Ahsan in pivotal roles. In June 1947, the bill was passed by the British regarding the partition of Bengal. The gruesome history of partition is being upheld by Srijit through this film, where the border of the two nations is woven by a brothel. Bengal was broken twice, in 1905 and 1947. British authority may call it demographically and administratively mandatory, but it was no more than just an attempt to curtail Bengal politics, to which they were successful as well. The narrative goes that the newly made Radcliffe Line passed in such a way that it bifurcated Rituparna’s brothel, situated right between the district of Haldibari(India) and Debiganj(East Pakistan). This brothel is a home to eleven women and two men. Later, this brothel was not just a mere house to them but became a nation between two nations. When the representative of Congress, Mr. Prafulla Sen (Saswata Chatterjee), and the representative of the Muslim League, Mr. Muhammad Ilias (Kaushik Sen), were jointly surveying and implementing the Radcliffe Line, they found this brothel in between and ordered Begumjaan to vacate the property, but she refused upfront. This escalated to hiring goons and threatening them. After this failed attempt, Kabir (Jissu Sengupta), the leader of the criminal gang, opened fire and bombarded the brothel. After setting up a tough resistance, the bloodied women entered the inferno of the house, willingly accepting their deaths in their own country—the brothel. There Lily Chakrabarty(thamma) was narrating the legendary story of Rani Padmini of Rajputana from the book Rajkahini by Abanindranath Tagore; she ends with “জয় মহাসতীর জয়,” such a paradoxical phrase at the deathbed of sex workers, who are considered to be impure and are excluded from the society in broad daylight, but the same crowd rushes to them at moonlight.

The brothel as the microcosm of the nation:

The brothel stands on the proposed Radcliffe Line, representing the torn and withered India by the foreign-imposed unplanned and random borders. The women refusing to vacate symbolizes the resistance to colonial disruption. The members, i.e., the sex workers, were not homogenous; Begumjaan (the boss) was a Muslim by look and outfit, whereas a scene depicted where Thamma was worshiping a painting of Debi Durga. It is home to women from different religions, regions, and societies coexisting in a shared space with a fragile unity not out of love but due to economic interdependence and survival—mirroring the pluralistic fabric of pre-Partition India. Duli (Sohini Sarkar) belonged to a ‘lower caste,’ and Koli (Shayoni Ghosh) was lower in the social hierarchy than Duli. A beautiful but short-lived love story between Rubina (Jaya Ahsan) and Sujan (Rudranil Ghosh) was shown with an unfortunate destiny where Sujan was chopped to death by Kabir(Jissu Sengupta). As political representatives and government officials tried to forcibly evict them, the women’s refusal to leave became symbolic of a broader nationalist resistance— a scene where all the members of the brothel burst into laughter after the officials showed them the eviction notice from Delhi and Karachi, respectively, was a sign of protest and showed how unprofessionally and irresponsibly the Radcliffe Line was drawn. It was the most non-violent yet strong protest, where everyone mocked the British, Congress, and the Muslim League altogether. This was an unwillingness to yield to imperial decisions that disregard the lives of ordinary citizens. The brothel's defiance challenges the authority of the colonial state and the postcolonial leaders who accepted Partition, suggesting that the real soul of the nation lies with its people, not in the drawing of borders. Furthermore, the brothel—often seen as a site of shame or moral decay in conservative discourse—is reclaimed in the film as a site of honor, courage, and sacrifice. Just as India is metaphorically portrayed as the violated mother in nationalist narratives, the brothel is a space both defiled and dignified. This reversal of meaning forces viewers to reconsider ideas of purity, nationhood, and who gets to represent the nation in times of crisis.

Bulldozing social and religious stigmas by unique characterization, upholding the truth of nationalism:

Firstly, the character of Kabir; according to me, this character is the epitome of defiance when one says, “Terrorism has a religion.” When Mr. Prafulla Sen and Mr. Ilias visited Kabir (a criminal gang leader) to evict the residents of the brothel, Kabir described himself as both a Hindu and a Muslim. He quoted that he is secular as he wears the sacred thread like Brahmins and circumcised himself like Muslims. He does change his attire according to the nature of the riot. He also quoted that he has both the ‘namaboli’ and ‘prayer cap,’ which he uses alternatively according to the hiring party. This dialogue shows the harsh reality of riots, which are mobilized by people like Kabir, but the common people mistrust a specific community. The choice of the name “Kabir”: Saint Kabir Das was raised in a Muslim family but is considered a revered figure by both Hindus and Muslims. His teachings promoted unity and tolerance, appealing to people from various religious backgrounds, whereas Kabir of Rajkahini is the exact reciprocal.

Secondly comes the character of Saleem Mirza; nullifying the existing stigma on every Muslim as a “jihadi,” a scene is designed where Saleem, being a sepoy, protected a few Hindus who were being chased by a mob of Muslims. Even he shot down three among the mob who were Muslims, this upholds the value of humanity over religion and mirrors the thousands of Muslims serving Indian defense and the huge population of Muslims serving our nation. They are not terrorists; they are not “jihadis”. Thus, treating exceptions as examples is simplistic, and being anti-Muslim holds no pride of nationalism, which is very relevant in today’s context. The character of Saleem also trained the women of the brothel with guns to resist the impending evil forces intended to evict them. But the final destiny of Saleem was unfortunate; he was burnt alive.

Thirdly, Begumjaan, the boss, broke the stigma of Muslim conservative norms for women by owning the brothel and employing men under her supervision. Moreover, in the later part, she became the prime figure of protest against the evicting forces. Begum Jaan is a powerful embodiment of defiance, dignity, and resistance. She challenges the state’s authority and refuses to surrender her home, turning her marginalized existence into a bold political stand. Rituparna brings emotional depth to the character, revealing both the steel and sorrow beneath her fierce exterior. Her performance highlights the complexities of a woman who, despite being a sex worker and a Muslim in a patriarchal and divided society, asserts her autonomy with unwavering strength. Ultimately, Begumjaan becomes a tragic symbol of a fractured nation and a fierce critique of communal and gendered violence. One of her strong dialogue was:

After she heard the iconic speech of Nehru about independence on the radio, she said in Hindi, “हिंदू, मुसलमान, अंग्रेज जो भी हो; आखिरकार मर्द जातेर देश.”

Lastly, the characters of Mr. Prafulla Sen of the Indian National Congress and Mr. Muhammad Ilias of the Muslim League, the history we read, describe the Muslim League and its members as evil. The pioneers of dividing the nation on the ground of religion are considered cruel, barbarous, and selfish, but this rhetoric is challenged by these two characters. Prafulla and Ilias were childhood friends, but their political ideologies collided, resulting in them being on different ends of Indian politics. When they met for the first time, both of them asked each other about their whereabouts, Prafulla replied that his family’s women were very close of getting raped but fortunately were saved. The audience sighed, but when Ilias replied that his family’s women were raped, murdered, and burnt, the audience got the reality check that damage was made and incurred by both ends of the fence. Moreover, when Begumjaan refused to vacate the brothel, the congressman, Prafulla, went to hire Kabir for this job. Mr. Ilias was disgusted by the methods Kabir and Prafulla were planning to make their agenda successful; he walked out from the conversation. This event reshapes the audience’s presumption on the Muslim League and broadly, the Muslims. The Muslim League’s nationalism for Pakistan was no less than Congress’ nationalism for India.

Redefining Nationalism: Women’s Resistance and Agency in Rajkahini

Women are not the passive victims of history. The partition exploited women the most in the form of gang rapes, humiliations, and inhumane torture. One instance from this film describes this the loudest: when a gang-raped girl was rescued to the refugee medical tent, she did not respond to any of the words her father asked her; instead, she responded to the order the doctor instructed to his assistant to open the windows by saying loudly, “ কিরে খোল !” The traumatized girl started opening her pajamas; this shows she repeatedly went through this phrase and it had become a reflex action. Another instance when a sex worker of the brothel exclaimed, whether it be a queen or a prostitute, both are controlled by men. The scenes developed from here and the maiden resistance was when Koli dared to face off with Begumjaan when she tried to dominate her based on her caste identity; the scene was plotted just after they celebrated the independence of India. This showcased the freedom and strength of every citizen in a democratic nation overthrowing unjust and oppressive colonial power. Later, all the members of the brothel joined hands and was led by Begumjaan, resisted the post-colonial political forces. If we consider the brothel to be a nation, each one of the brothel, despite their differences, came together to show what real nationalism looks like. They questioned all those people who consented to the bloody partition of the nation. After the bloody confrontation against the armed forces of Kabir, they realized their defeat. They did not surrender; instead, they sacrificed their lives within the boundary of their “own nation.” Sex workers who are considered to be impure and non-pious became the martyrs of their heaven, i.e., brothel, and did not choose to relocate themselves, as it was everything they had, their comfort, their mother, and thus went for a do-or-die rather than compromising as if agreeing to the partition.

 

 

 

Conclusion:

I will be mentioning a few strong scenes from the film and then conclude the entire note:

Firstly, at the beginning of the film, two locations were simultaneously shown: Wagah Border and a refugee camp; pride, valor, and glory in the former and misery, poverty, and vulnerability in the latter. Another scene where Radcliffe confesses to Lord Mountbatten that he does not know anything about India; he had no idea where Punjab and Bengal are. Yet, Lord insisted by saying that somebody has to do this job; why not Radcliffe? Furthermore, Lord Mountbatten mentioned, every surgery needs anesthesia. Here, “Independence will be the anesthesia for the bloody surgery of India”. Lastly, the strongest scene is of an infant boy urinating on the newly set fence between the nations. It was brief but deeply symbolic. The boy’s religion, caste, culture, race, creed, and none of the other social discriminates were portrayed in this scene, upholding a strong and unified protest and disgust upon the idiotic attempt to divide a nation that too so abruptly.  This moment, while simple, captures the absurdity and artificiality of political borders. The boy’s innocence contrasts with the violent, adult-driven process of Partition. His act is not political—but it powerfully illustrates how boundaries are imposed on lives that once flowed freely across them.

While concluding this note, I would like to mention that the nationalism we are habituated to watch everywhere today is not what it was all the time. The truth is, nationalism is different for people belonging to different strata of social and cultural hierarchy and not just how it feels to the men of a homogenous mass. Nationalism is directly connected to identity crisis, just like human beings tend to turn into cannibals out of extreme hunger. Here, in this film, there has always been an identity crisis for the members of the brothels. They are unsure about where they truly belong, seeing none, they clawed upon the brothel, considering it to be their ultimate destiny, but that too was engulfed by the unplanned creation and execution of the Radcliffe Line. This crisis ignited the flames of nationalism and led to obvious consequences without bringing out any miraculous ending out of the blue. The film is honest with its backdrop and its viewers, which is a tough thing to do. With the motive of speaking the truth honestly, the filmmakers framed the co-existing truths so meticulously that a serious viewer will have a lot to unlearn and relearn after watching this; broadly, it restructured how nationalism can be viewed from various lenses. Does only receiving the label of a sovereign state make a country truly independent? Did expelling the British from the country and partitioning only on the ground of religion and ignoring other parallel aspects serve for the ultimate peace that the leaders of the nation were dreaming of throughout their struggle for India’s freedom? Will the majoritarian version of nationalism be the only prevalent narrative that everyone should be inculcating to prove their own self to be a nationalist, or will every nuanced version be given equal importance and not be further subdued?

Upam Buzarbaruah quoted the following while reviewing RAJKAHINI for Times of India:

“Rajkahini's flaws don't take away from the beauty of the concept or its execution. It still remains a must watch for you. It demands and deserves a standing ovation.”

Reference:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajkahini

2. “Woman and Militant Nationalism: Srijit Mukherji’s Rajkahini and the Issue of Partition” by Tania Chakravertty, Samyukta: A Journal of Gender and Culture, Vol. 9, No.1, January 2024

 3.https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bengali/movie-reviews/rajkahini/movie-review/49448912.cms